The pause in global warming is so crippling, so crucial, that scientists will go to extremes to find any excuse to issue something that combines the magic terms “no pause” and “extreme temperatures”. This is the winning combination in climate bingo. But marvel how far these researchers have to stretch to get there.
Gaze upon Seneviratne et al (UNSW) declaring that there is no pause in the trend of “extreme hot temperature days”. Watch the pea (or rather peas).
Globally, on average, regions normally expect around 36.5 extremely hot days in a year. The observations showed that during the period from 1997-2012, regions that experienced 10, 30 or 50 extremely hot days above this average saw the greatest upward trends in extreme hot days over time and the area they impacted.
The consistently upward trend persisted right through the “hiatus” period from 1998-2012.
If the world was warming, they wouldn’t bother with this strained nonsense, would they? They are talking about 15 year trends in air over land, in summer, on the hottest 10% of days.
- Seneviratne et al acknowledge the pause in global temperatures. Therefore the models, and the theory is wrong. Every other incidental trend in smaller markers is a deckchair on the Clitanic.
- There is no causal connection with CO2. The greenhouse effect is supposed to be full time. It’s not like there are days when it doesn’t work. CO2 is either making the global average warmer as predicted or… it isn’t and their models are useless.
- The paper admits the summer extremes are warming over land, but not the warm winter extremes. So the greenhouse effect switches off in winter? That will be news. Wait, they also find there is a cooling effect in the mid-high latitudes of the northern hemisphere during the boreal winter? Isn’t that pretty close to when and where peak CO2 levels occur? I guess that’s only 10ppm of extra CO2, but this is not “parts of a jigsaw” coming together — it’s cherry picking.
- Extreme heat doesn’t necessarily mean hot. Looks like some of these extreme warm days occurred in places like Russia, Alaska and Greenland. As far as I can tell, they define “hottest extreme days” as being the hottest 10% of all days in a grid cell from 1979-2010. The average July temperature in Nuuk, Greenland is 10C (50F) so the top 10% of “extreme hot weather” there is not so scary.
- Are they serious? A 15 year noisy trend in 30 year dataset is irrelevant. The graphs start in 1979 (when satellites start) but that’s also near the start of the last long warming cycle. For all we know it is connected to the natural upswing in the 60 year PDO cycle. Indeed, if surface cooling of the ocean is reducing global averages now (the explanation Seneviratne offers for the lack of global warming), obviously surface warming of the ocean could have been doing the opposite before. Without longer records this is meaningless, mindless PR headline hunting with no scientific significance.
- Just because something is statistically significant doesn’t mean it is meaningful. Since it warmed for the first 20 years of the dataset and then paused at the warmer level, it’s hardly surprising that someone can still “discover” some short trends that are rising.
Are the UNSW scientists trying to learn something about the world, or are they trying to generate headlines with the words “extreme hot temperatures”? Judge them by their press releases….
Click to enlarge. Note big blue cooling areas in the DJF months (northern winter) and warming extremes in the Sahara. Note also the amount of “extreme” heat days in high cold latitudes from December to May.
They are discussing a 15 year trend in “hottest days” at the end of a natural variation which is something like this:
The graph ends 100 years ago. So extend that red line up 0.9C. Then whip up some panic about the last quarter millimeter.
Sure, this is GISP — one ice core from Greenland and not global temperatures. The truth is we have no idea whether the current level of “extreme” hot days is much different to the hot spells 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, or 7,000 years ago. It is completely disingenuous to pretend that a 15 year trend in a data set this noisy tells us something that matters.
Forget global average temperatures — move those goal posts
This paper is very ambitious — they would like us to believe that global average temperatures aren’t that important now, really these heat extremes have more impact. And maybe heat extremes do have more impact (it’s debatable), but they don’t tell us about the cause.
The climate scientists really hate the term “pause” calling it “ill-chosen”, “misleading” and “erroneous”. (Who is in denial?)
Based on existing observational evidence, we highlight that the term pause, as applied to the recent evolution of global annual mean temperatures, is ill-chosen and even misleading in the context of climate change.
Indeed, an apparently static global mean temperature can mask large trends in temperatures at both regional4 and seasonal11 scales.…
These results have several important implications. First, they show that it would be erroneous to interpret the recent slowdown of the global annual mean temperature increase as a general slowdown of climate change.
They admit they don’t understand the causes:
As usual the caveats are carefully couched in the fine print that no journalist will bother to read:
This conclusion also applies to climate change projections, which are often expressed as changes in the global mean surface temperature1, although some of the most relevant impacts are related to temperature extremes over land rather than changes in mean temperature per se. In this context, a better understanding of the full complexity of changes resulting from greenhouse gas emissions, focusing on the identification of individual processes contributing to the global-scale response, is necessary.
“Hottest extreme days” is just another way to measure climate, one of an infinity of indicators. They were wrong on global averages. So they’re looking to report on anything “getting worse”. This is cherry picking a mindless statistic.
And Nature thought it was worth publishing.
The news: Climate change: No warming hiatus for extreme hot temperatures
EXTRA POINTS: I could go on…
*See Fig 1b, am I imagining it — is that a 15 year flat trend til 1997 followed by a 15 year rising one? Wasn’t CO2 increasing the whole time?
** They use the ERA-Interim dataset. It’s reanalysis using models. That’s just another layer of estimates and assumptions.
***You might think that this is about hot days measured by thermometers or that it means “days over 40C” or something like that. Not so. You’ll need to read the Supplementary information to even start to understand what they mean by land area, or “extreme” heat.
S1. Calculation of extreme warm day exceedances (ExD10, ExD30, ExD50) for
ERA-Interim and HadEX2 datasets
We calculated indices representing exceedances of warm days at each grid box for Figure 1. These are based on the 90th percentile warm day frequency (TX90p) as defined by the Expert Team for Climate Change Detection and Indices1,2, which counts the annual number of days with daily maximum temperature above the 90th percentile. The percentile threshold for each day is calculated using a five-day window (centered on each calendar day), using a bootstrapping method3 to avoid inhomogeneities at the beginning and end of the percentile base period. The reference number of extreme warm days (ExDref) is calculated at each location as the TX90p average over the 1979-
2010 time period. The yearly timeseries of extreme warm day exceedances (ExD10, ExD30, ExD50) are computed with respect to ExDref. They indicate the land area ratio in each year (using a weighted area sum according to the size of the respective grid cells), affected by an exceedance of 10 (ExD10), 30 (ExD30), and 50 (ExD50) extreme warm days, respectively. A ratio of 1 indicates that the land area fraction affected by a given exceedance corresponds to the 1979-2010 reference value, a ratio of 2 indicates a doubling (see Fig. 1). [And there’s a lot more….]
REFERENCE
Sonia I. Seneviratne, Markus G. Donat, Brigitte Mueller & Lisa V. Alexander (2014) No pause in the increase of hot temperature extremes, Nature Climate Change, vol 4, p 161–163, doi:10.1038/nclimate2145
Hi Jo,
I don’t comment very often here, even if I read your blog daily. Thanks for yet another thorough and insightful analysis. You are a brilliant woman!
Best regards,
Luca
560
Isn’t UNSW also responsible for the “Ship of Fools” that went to the Antarctic to show the “disappearing” ice (that actually isn’t) and then got trapped in it?
Methinks that they have a problem with this climate/weather stuff …
420
It’s amazing how many of my university friends who I once thought to be extremely intelligent are still defending the climate change and global warming movement.
Unfortunately it seems to really have gotten under their skin and I suspect they cannot actually shake it. It’s like the defining ideology of a generation. The wierd and wacky combination of environmentalism and statism in which university academics fight the evil forces of industry and democracy which threaten to destroy the world! How can the cold hard reality of observations and statistical significance compare to this romantic narrative? CAGW is by far the most effective propoganda campaign of all time. I wish there was an antidote but I suspect the majority who have been infected cannot be cured. They will need to die out and be replaced by a generation who has to live with the consequences of the greatest scam if all time.
260
Obviously your university friends have been “educated into stupidity”.
They can no longer think for themselves.
Poor fools them !
60
Rather more amazing, Sonny, is that they still talk to you!
311
Time waster.
31
–
‘On yer, Sonny, you flushed an ad hom out of JB.
30
JB is one big ad hom.
An insult to human intelligence.
41
Oh, the unintentional irony…
10
Once they have been led to make up their mind then critique and sceptisism becomes an insult to the sensibilities of the educated classes of the East Coast?
It makes them look stupid?
40
I look for “hot days” in HADCET a few months ago using TMAX. Nothing to worry about at all.
“There were 45 days over 30C since 1878.
Of the 45 days 30C and over, 5 occurred from 2003 to 2006, none after 2006.
6 occurred in the 1940s.
14 occurred in the 1970s – 9 of which occurred in 1976 alone.”
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/hadcet-maximum-temperature-days-over-30c/
280
This is the impostor Bruce, don’t believe a word he says. Bruce
40
Two Bruces – this reminds of that Monty Python skit.
Talking about hot days did you know that the BOM Perth Metro site in Mt Lawley recorded just 8 centuries (37.7 degrees +) this Summer just past. Last Summer there were 19. Apparently the average is 14. And wait for this – no centuries in February (Perth’s hottest month) – that is very unusual. And globally check out the Weatherbell Global Temp Map for February – very much in the blue zone (below average), especially most of Oz.
130
But, but, but, the paper’s headline was hot, hot, hot, something like 5th hottest whatever. Spare a thought for Tim Blair, stuck in ice in Washington! Since rescued.
50
Yeah, but as soon as February finished we got a century in Perth straight away…
19
Just for the record Perth Metro recorded no centuries during the period 22 January to 28 February – that is 38 days without a single century during what is traditionally the hottest part of Perth’s Summer. If you want to understand why John look at the Weatherbell Global Temp Maps for January & February 2014, and please note the below average temps in central & northern Oz, and it will all start to make sense. We get our worst heatwaves when the northern Oz monsoon is weak or delayed. If there in no heat furnace in central Oz then few centuries materialise in our SW during prolonged NE “high pressure” wind patterns. As you no doubt are aware NE “high pressure” wind patterns are a dominant feature in our SW during February.
100
“that is 38 days without a single century during what is traditionally the hottest part of Perth’s Summer.’
Actually, that is really quite amazing.. highly unusual.
Do you think the world might be cooling! 😉
80
Global Temps have flat lined for the past 15 years. No cooling yet but maybe ask that question to residents of most of the USA mainland states where they have endured a bitterly long cold winter with numerous record low temps. If you visit the USA any time soon don’t mention “Global Warming” – you will get your head bitten off.
50
Coming from that currently frozen wasteland, forecast is for only -30C tomorrow night as a low. That’s not taking the wind into consideration, but I’m guessing nobody is going to be talking 100 year highs. There will be colder temperatures further north in the USA.
10
JB;
“Yeah, but as soon as February finished we got a century in Perth straight away…”
–
Can’t help bad luck!
10
“we got a century in Perth straight away”
Well enjoy it while you can . !
20
Nice catch.
I wonder if their next, reanalysis of temperature data will do.
I sometimes wonder why they don’t take the square of all the arctic temperatures,add, square root, then average that.
A very mannian molestation, but Nature would print it, the presstitutes would broadcast it.
Sure would warm the average.
That average global temperature, shame they never state the value in degrees C.
And never admit how many different “official” AGT’s they have.
The title is wrong; No Change in propaganda from UNSW.
281
I hope that you’re not taking the piss out of my effort to put up a counter claim to the claim that the we are getting more extreme summers. Agreed, if trying to prove something, it was dodgy but it was pointing out a fault with claiming that it was significant that 4 days over 41%deg;C was a broken record when 5 days over 40%deg;C wasn’t broken (and it was record equaling, not breaking, with a summer more than 100 years ago).
20
I’m innocent.Direct me to this.
Until current conditions duplicate heatwaves of the past, with mass bird deaths and so on, you know these posers are lying.
40
They may be forced to argue that the mass bird deaths do not happen any more because the birds that have not been roasted alive by solar reflector farms have been dancing with wind turbines.
50
Comment #19
00
What immediately came to mind after reading the quote from Seneviratne et al you have provided was the line from the U.S. 70s show Laugh-in where the telephone operator says: “Is this the party to whom I am speaking?”
80
Ah yes, the…. “Expert Team for Climate Change Detection and Indices”.
Were they in Ghostbusters or is it a department at the Vatican?
90
“Expert Team for Climate Change Distraction” ?
A department of the vaccum in intelligence of “Climate Science?
20
Such climate scientists are more than in denial. They are very likely delusional and mentally unsound. How they can even be called scientists is beyond anyone’s understanding. They are anything but because they have broken several cardinal rules about conducting real science. If anything they have fallen for confirmation bias at best, or are scam artists at worst. In any case they are not true scientists in the strictest definition, and I hazard a guess that most scientists know that, including perhaps some of those so called climate scientists.
300
PeterS, you are on the money. This is not my normal tone of occasional comment, but it’s more than sickening, the degradation of the once respected and professonal qualification: scientist, by so-called “progressives”, more accurately called “regressives”.
Much of what society now sees in the media, including in so-called science journals, is portrayed as science, when it’s really dressed up garbage by activist and political opportunists as a means to seek another grant. So here’s my take as a comment on the above paper Jo has so eloquently shredded any credibility the authors may have sought as science.
Much like the old saying: “One swallow doesn’t make a summer”, not all those who graduate with a science degree make a scientist, in the time-honoured principle, practice and definition conferred on the title. Not everyone chooses prostitution as a career move either, but the principle and practice is well understood in all cultures and societies.
Perhaps, just perhaps, there is a correlation (but not causation) in the number of scientists practising “prostitution science” (Note: not all climate scientists, nor any other discipline in science fall into this category), as a percentage (across all disciplines of science) and the number of people in society employed in physical prostitution? And would it not be interesting if there is a distinct blip in the number of “climate scientists” as a percentage of all disciplines in science. Many papers could ensue on the
growth“warming trend” in number of climate “scientists” in the historical data, perhaps even stretching it to dangerous, if not catastrophic! Then eventual, sudden collapse, much like some previous civilisations.No need for a geological time scale here, merely take it back to 1950, prior to the pre-global cooling scare era in the 70’s, to when scientists (and engineers, etc) were advancing our knowledge and society, which many today take for granted the phenomenal outcomes of their many endeavours. With any luck, there remains a vibrant gene pool ready to reclaim the standards of science (and engineering, etc) that were so well respected in those early decades. And one might suggest it also spawned a growth in science and engineering at Universities, but we now see the opposite today. Is there a connection in young students now not respecting science, so don’t select it as a career today, when they see so many clowns and science prostitutes on TV (note the ABC wasn’t mentioned here)?
A paper with all the stats and charts illustrating the outliers in a distribution curve would surely qualify for publication in the “esteemed” climate science journals. It could also show, over time, the historical mixup there must have been in Universities between the pseudo-science and psycho-analytical fields of “study”, converging in the hybrid faculty: “Climate Science”. No doubt plenty of data is sitting there ready for many to whip up a paper or two in no time, just in time for that grant application, with potentially plenty of data already in house at UNSW.
160
This just shows that these so-called scientists do not understand how an average works. So there are more warm days – so what? The extra cold days cancel them out because that is how an average works you bunch of brain dead-mouth breathing-sanctimonius-knuckle dragging-cretins.
50
It’s time for someone to post the number of extremely COLD days this winter. It likely would be thousands in NA alone. Today we are enjoying a balmy -24ºC for a high, and -34ºC for a low- normals are -5ºC and -15ºC. Just sayin’
210
But you have to remember, these UNSW are so far up themselves, that they think Australia is “global”. (when it suits them)
230
Here in Saskatoon Canada the current temperature as of 3PM is -27 C and with the wind chill it is -39 C and tonight we are to dip down to -42 C (wind chill -49 C). We’ve actually had quite a few of these cold days this winter. Will these low temperatures reduce the global average of the warmists? sarc
190
One would think that cold days would reduce the average, but climate science is based on a “special average” that is not affected by such things. (sarc, sort of)
30
Don’t be silly, cold days are weather, not climate. Sheesh, get educated or something.
200
Cold days tend to be weather because you live in hope they’re only temporary. Whereas warm days are climate, because we only want to remember the good times 🙂
10
Sorry R2, I’m an Aussie, what is “NA” and where is it?
20
NA – North America
20
Chuckle .. and I spent ages looking for a state with abbrev “NA”.. DOH !! lol.. at myself. 🙂
00
The volume of total utter bullshit currently being shovelled at the UNSW on so-called “global warming” makes me ashamed of being an Alumnus. I now hereby this day renounce all association.
380
I feel exactly the same!
120
“The volume of total utter bullshit currently being shovelled at the UNSW on so-called “global warming” makes me ashamed of being an Alumnus. I now hereby this day renounce all association”
–
It doesn’t matter; they’ll still have the ‘heeby jeebies’!
20
Unfortunately, UNSW has become the epicentre of obfuscation, the ground zero of denial, the fulcrum of vacillation, the bucket in the well of ignorance, and even the mooring for the “ship of fools”. Now that’s multi-tasking.
220
Winston – too true! It is a grave pity when academic prestige was more important than understanding of the truth. Such it appears to be at Uni’s these days. The Uni of NSW not least of them.
Cheers,
Speedy.
00
On the plus side increased CO2 levels should help reduce the intensity of catastrophic bush fires.
110
James
Strictly speaking, yes, higher CO2 means lower O2 which means less flammibility. But the effect is, in practical terms, immeasurable or sweet Fanny as we say in the business. Same could be said frow CGW – if you’re feeling generous.
Cheers,
Speedy
50
Might be a order problem there ~ 400 ppm V 11% ( 110000ppm?)
00
oops 20 & a bit%
00
Pattoh
Absolutely agree – but when was the last time you met a greeny who was good with numbers? So, in their eyes, 400 (ppm) would be a lot bigger than 20.9 (%) /sarc. But, they do have a point; even on the purely hypothetical side, any reduction in O2 content will (theoretically) reduce the flammibility of fuels. Does it make a practical difference? Nah!
The fact that no-one would actually notice the difference is the EXACT problem the alarmists face at the moment. While CO2 may be a theoretical warming agent, it’s impact is so pathetic that it has no practical impact. Unfortunately for them, the alarmists need to convert the theoretical issue into something which is both tangible and scary. The so called “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming is a profound embarrassment and a threat to their cashflow. Consider “Professor” Chris Turney’s response when he recently found his boat stuck in some ice that wasn’t supposed to be there!
Likewise, the convoluted logic they are using now to justify their rather dodgy position, as described by Jo.
Cheers,
Speedy
30
Luckily climate scientists are good with numbers.
And the slowness of the effect is no problem to alarmists. You just wait, and it happens. They you say, “Told you so”.
16
John
Yep. Climate Scientists. The guys who tell us that the centre of the earth is “Millions” of degrees in temperature (that’d be Fahrenheit I suppose?), that sea levels will rise by 100 metres this century (seems to be taking it’s time, doesn’t it John?) and that the Himalayan glaciers will all be gone by the 2035. Gold standard science.
They’re also the guys who can read tropospheric temperatures with wind gauges (apparently they don’t like the results they get from radiosondes and thermometers), the ones who don’t publish their computer model codes and the ones who just tell us to trust their “science” when they come screaming for carbon tax money.
John, they’re good with the pencil work inasmuch as they always get the answer they want, but that’s about it. It would be obtuse to say otherwise.
Cheers,
Speedy
70
“They you say, “Told you so”
Yep.. and when they predict “everything”……… hot, cold, wet, dry, more, less, better, worse.. with a range as wide as a barn door to a flea…
Well, you know how climate non-science works.
ps “nonsense” is but a contraction on “non-science”.
40
“Luckily climate scientists are good with numbers’
roflmao..
no JB, they are not good with faking it with numbers.. anyone with a real mathematical education is going to catch them out every time,
….as has happened, time, and time, and time, and time again. They are amateurs.
Really JB, you must try, just once, to engage what little thought process you have….. just once….. some day….. maybe.
All your posts ever do is create laughter at your moronic ineptitude.
50
JB;
“Luckily climate scientists are good with numbers”
–
–
You cunningly omitted any reference to calculations.
–
Very unsubtle!!!
30
“Luckily climate scientists are good with numbers”
Yep, basic first year high school maths is their forte.
40
John
And sorry, I forgot to mention Tim (No rain will fall into the dams) Flannery. He was clearly ahead of his time. For example, the Brisbane floods that were never going to happen. It was a grave injustice that “never” happened so soon.
My little black heart does bleed.
And it will, next time as well.
Cheers,
Speedy
30
Good at numbers? Padding a grant, quite possibly. Producing statistical data? Needs improvement. Knowing how to use Excel or Numbers would be an advantage.
30
Perhaps you could name one with a degree in statistics. That isn’t a skeptic, of course.
30
Oh-I just realized how good with numbers I could be if I did like Mann did and feed a bunch of numbers into a computer, have the computere average the values per year and then plot the graph. I think what you meant to say was climate sciences have computers with really nifty programs.
40
Ah yes, but on the other side more CO2 means more plant growth thus increasing the fuel load available for more catastrophic bush fires.
30
And better crop growth, meaning more food……….
20
So more co2, less oxygen and higher air pressure because of the denser co2 – all be walking around giggling on nitrous.
00
390 ppm CO2 vs 200.000 ppm O2. I wonder if O2 has gone down 110 ppm since the Industrial Age started?
11
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/coop/scripps/o2/o2.html
“From 1991 through 2005, the O2 content of the atmosphere has dropped by 0.00248% (248 per meg) of it’s initial amount. The rate is mostly explained by the global combustion of fossil-fuel over this period, although the actual rate is slightly smaller than expected from fossil-fuel alone. The difference evidently reflects a global imballance between photosynthesis and respiration.”
10
gees.. won’t be long before we are unable to breathe !!!
PANIC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11
Jo, you say
David Whitehouse at the GWPF has looked at Santer et al 2014 on the pause. He says
That graph is here
I think the situation is that the Ben Santer is so keen to explain the pause, he loses touch with reality. Much as Kevin Trenberth in saying that the missing heat dives straight from the atmosphere through over 2000m of ocean. Or this paper, which assumes that climate is made more extreme by CO2 directly, when the climate models projected that rapid warming that could destabilize the climate.
110
That is one of the biggest shot own foot examples in the AGW lexicon!
Santer’s thesis is the pause is due to volcanic activity but with the temperature effect of the volcanoes removed temperatures are still flat.
Jesus H., these guys will never stop until they’re sued or otherwise put out of their misery.
20
Yes, let’s sue everybody who’s been wrong about climate change. The bigger the mistake, the bigger the sue.
How many mistakes have *you* made, Cohenite?
Were you in any way involved in promoting John McLean’s abject failure of a prediction when he announced 2012 would be the coldest year since 1956?
Were you not wrong about the facts of ocean acidification?
10
This is the GWPF that does no science of its own, is too embarrassed to reveal its source of funding, spends all its money on PR instead of doing any research?
Forgive me if I am sceptical of anything they have to say….
—————————-
Forgive us if we are unconvinced by yet another ad hom fallacy. You are not skeptical. That’s the problem. – Jo
10
It seems that many Climate Scientists are running scared at the moment but don’t know that they are.
Most seem to be in denial that the real world is not doing what they said it would be doing and are desperately scrabbling around for explanations.
When you owe your, and your families, financial and social standing to your status as a scientist and your expertise is questioned – in this case by Nature – how many would be strong enough not to do what many of them are doing?
It doesn’t make it right that they should look for excuses and move the goalposts but it does make it understandable.
It also must be very difficult to break ranks with ones colleagues just when they need your support the most but blind obedience to a lost cause will always end in tears!
Sometimes, it takes a lot of courage to say those three little words.
‘We don’t know’
150
Using those three words will have trolls screaming that if you don’t know, you’re not scientific. If the current explanation is wrong, the only way to fix it is with a new explanation. Global warming cannot be replaced with “we don’t know” because—well, because—-well, it just can’t.. Ask any troll.
41
For complete BS, flavoured with smoke and mirrors and then stirred with dodgy models, it was really quite creative.
Bottom line: creativity is now a paramount consideration for ‘climate scientists’. For without creativity, the troughs could dry up and that would mean no more grants, the lifeblood of alarmism.
200
And the legions of useful idiots … usually in blue shirts in Australia.
70
Given the intelligence quota of the funding committees and civil services shuffling the funds, can one really blame a creative proposal to investigate?
20
Excellent point John and one that has been almost totally overlooked by everybody throughout the climate debacle.
The funding authorities in the universities and funding bodies and committees in the government quangos and one hell of a lot of global warming funding comes from all sorts of quasi official outfits including agricultural research funders to my disgust, have never been spotlighted and their entrails examined for their almost 100 % funding of climate alarmists with almost nothing going to any skeptical scientists to research alternative viewpoints and science.
Restructure, ie remove and eliminate or restructure most of the climate science funding bodies and stop most of their tax payer provided funds and the whole global alarmist advocacy science would likely collapse in a heap of recriminations and savage academic infighting overnight.
30
ROM.
Crowd source funding.
Cancel all government funding, reduce govt theft by same amount, let us fund it, if the scientist can make a convincing pitch.
Fire the entire funding bureaucracy.
Close the universities, online is where its at.
If the little darlings can read.
After all cheating over the net, is different from institutional cheating. how?
10
Can’t remember the dates or details, but there has been a mention several times of Marble bar, something like 106 days in a row over 40C. Around 1910 ?
(Sorry, I don’t write all these things down, and I don’t get supplied with a CD of stuff either.)
In fact , nearly all raw data shows this large peak around 1910 in all inland parts of Australia, certainly hotter then than now.
And any tiny amount of hot days down here has been well and truly balance globally by freezing American and northern hemisphere winters.
Basically , these fools are talking about something that is totally irrelevant wrt global climate..
But its all that they have. NOTHING !
110
Here’s data from Benalla where even the BOM HQ deep freeze of the past still has 1910, 1940 up level with now..
But look at those raw temps.. OUCH !!! Its been far warmer in the past in central NSW and Victoria.
100
End of October 1923 through to April 1924, if memory serves correctly, 160days in total above 100f or 37.8c. Also Burke in 1898 for 6 weeks never got below 100f day or night wasn’t a poor effort either.
20
Perhaps, like the Titanic, we can get them a small orchestra to play as their ship goes down. It seems like the least we could do, just as a courtesy, as we usher them out the door. Maybe some of Jo’s big oil money could be used to pay the musicians. 😉
110
1. The pause is in atmospheric temperatures not in the build up of energy in the global climate system such as the oceans and the melting cryosphere. ignoring the complete picture is not science and woefully dishonest.
2. Yes the greenhouse effect is full-time but is not the only factor in play. It is on top of natural factors and cycles. So you don’t believe in natural variations? Again, typically, ignoring the full picture to present a biased viewpoint.
3. Trends show that hot days records beat cold days 3 to 1 and 5 to 1 at night and that winter is warming faster than summer. To expect that it would be hotter where CO2 is strongest displays a childlike understanding of climate (also shown in the previous point). Weather and climate depends on things like ocean currents, differences in temps between land, ocean and atmosphere, etc. The CO2 causes global warming that changes these factors, regionally vastly different weather changes can occur.
4. Irrelevent, if the temperature is hotter than normal then it is extreme for that region. Are you really a scientist? Its a pretty basic point.
5. Actually the trend is well over 120 years. You guys are the ones that cherry pick by focussing on a 15 year trend, ignoring the long term trend, ignoring natural factors and ignoring all the other places energy is going, such as the oceans and cryosphere. So 2 complete cycles but temps have increased nearly a degree c. Yes someone has found a short term trend in one area of the climate and is milking it, you.
435
How is that marvelous arctic ice recovery you guys kept banging on about?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries_thumb.png
323
Going well.
Thanks for confirming the ice is still there.
And with-in natural variation.
After all, your ‘settled’ climate science said the arctic was supposed to be ice free by now.
That was because of UN-natural variations from man.
Man made Global Warming. Catastrophic man made Global Warming even.
You did believe in man made Global Warming, didn’t you?
171
You obviously have a problem with comprehension and understanding of basic facts. Current ice confirms a long downward trend that is way below natural variation and projections by the IPCC. They were way to conservative on this one, as well as sea level and most other climatic changes(except your cherry picked one, which has been explained multiple times by natural variation and other forms of increasing energy).
Please point to the actual scientific projection of an ice free arctic rather than a misrepresentation of comments by a few individuals. Anthony Watts also said in 2009 that the Arctic would recover from 2010. Obviously your science understanding and comprehension skills need improvement.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/02/Fig3_Jan2014_trend-350×261.png
226
And the Antarctic sea ice extent?
–
-………………………….(don’t mention ‘the war’!)
151
Quote: “You obviously have a problem with comprehension and understanding of basic facts.”
It is a graph of the last 6 months. That is a fact.
Quote: “Current ice confirms a long downward trend that is way below natural variation and projections by the IPCC.”
And if we look at longer timelines via the Greenland Ice core? See a trend there?
It is well known by now that the IPCC science has failed to predict any climate, and one of its many failures’s is acknowledged in your comment. No link needed.
* “Cherry Picked”? There is a lot of low hanging fruit. More like ice free lotto.
* “Which has been explained multiple times before” Where? Link please.
Quote: “Please point to the actual scientific projection … rather than misrepresentation of comments by a few individuals.”
Firstly: Definition of a scientific statement as opposed to ‘scientific projection‘.
Example of a scientific statement i.e. it can be proven falsifiable:
Video quotes. Individuals speaking on behalf of NASA and National Snow & Ice Data Centre:
Jay Swally, NASA: 1.07 minute: “Most of the sea ice will decrease and disappear at the end of summer.”
As for your WUWT unicorn and your tendency to project …
140
Link Update, arctic ice levels before satellites:
NSIDC – Scientists have pieced together historical ice conditions to determine that Arctic sea ice could have been much lower in summer as recently as 5,500 years ago.
80
Perhaps I can help.
Canada’s Inter Press Service
The Prediction
The Sept.2010 prediction from Mark Serreze, Director of the National Snow and Ice Center . Boulder Colorado , restating his 2007 statement.
Arctic Ice in Death Spiral
[quoted]
UXBRIDGE, Canada, Sep 20 2010 (IPS) – The carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have melted the Arctic sea ice to its lowest volume since before the rise of human civilisation, dangerously upsetting the energy balance of the entire planet, climate scientists are reporting.
More than 2.5 million square kilometres of the Arctic Ocean have been opened up to the heat of the 24-hour summer sun. Credit: Vinay Deep/creative commons
“The Arctic sea ice has reached its four lowest summer extents (area covered) in the last four years,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the U.S. city of Boulder, Colorado.
The volume – extent and thickness – of ice left in the Arctic likely reached the lowest ever level this month, Serreze told IPS.
“I stand by my previous statements that the Arctic summer sea ice cover is in a death spiral. It’s not going to recover,” he said.
There can be no recovery because tremendous amounts of extra heat are added every summer to the region as more than 2.5 million square kilometres of the Arctic Ocean have been opened up to the heat of the 24-hour summer sun. A warmer Arctic Ocean not only takes much longer to re-freeze, it emits huge volumes of additional heat energy into the atmosphere, disrupting the weather patterns of the northern hemisphere, scientists have now confirmed.
[ end of quote]
___________________________________
From the BBC which is definitely not noted for any skeptical commentary.
The Reality Oct 2013
Esa’s Cryosat sees Arctic sea-ice volume bounce back
[quoted]
The bounce back in the extent of sea ice in the Arctic this summer was reflected also in the volume of ice.
Data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft suggests there were almost 9,000 cu km of ice at the end of this year’s melt season.
This is close to 50% more than in the corresponding period in 2012.
It is a rare piece of good news for a region that has witnessed a rapid decline in both area cover and thickness in recent years.
But scientists caution against reading too much into one year’s “recovery”.
“Although the recovery of Arctic sea ice is certainly welcome news, it has to be considered against the backdrop of changes that have occurred over the last few decades,” said Prof Andy Shepherd of University College London, UK.
“It’s estimated that there were around 20,000 cu km of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today’s minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years,” he told BBC News.
Cryosat is the European Space Agency’s (Esa) dedicated polar monitoring platform.
It has a sophisticated radar system that allows scientists to work out the thickness of the ice floes covering the Arctic Ocean.
In the three years following its launch, the spacecraft saw a steady decline in autumn ice volume, with a record low of 6,000 cubic km being recorded in late October 2012.
But after a sharply colder summer this year, the autumn volume number has gone up.
Measurements taken in the same three weeks in October found the floes to contain just shy of 9,000 cu km.
Thicker ice has been retained in the Arctic
Part of this stronger performance can be put down to the greater retention of older ice.
This is evident particularly around the Canadian archipelago and North Greenland, where there is much more two-year-old and three-year-old ice than in previous years.
“One of the things we’d noticed in our data was that the volume of ice year-to-year was not varying anything like as much as the ice extent – at least for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012,” explained Rachel Tilling from the UK’s Nerc Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling (CPOM).
“This is why we’re really quite surprised by what we’ve seen in 2013.
“We didn’t expect the greater ice extent left at the end of the summer melt to be reflected in the volume.
“But it has been. And the reason is related to the amount of multi-year ice in the Arctic.”
Dr Don Perovich is a sea-ice expert at Dartmouth College, US.
He said Cryosat’s data tallied with observations made by other spacecraft.
“In previous summers, some of the [multi-year ice] migrated over to the Alaska and Siberia areas where it melted. But this past summer, it stayed in place because of a change in wind patterns. And so there’ll likely be more multi-year ice next year than there was this year,” he told BBC News.
[end]
90
The Arctic sea ice is still within 2 standard deviations of the mean for data for a few decades (that could have started a few more years earlier so that the present would be even closer to the mean). This means that it is within what is expect for 95% of the years, according to the small sample size.
Newspaper reports from the 1969 about the possible complete loss of sea ice in two decades suggest that if records had gone back further that this would not be unusual.
Now since you are trying to make believe that you are looking at this in non-partisan way, would you please acknowledge that the low level of ice might not be unusual so it is not evidence of climate change?
181
So newspaper reports is your idea of science? Actual scientific studies have shown that the melting is faster and worse than it has been for at least 1400 years. Also why is it melting? or are you going to go with the “climate is magic and unknowable’ defense.
329
Are you suggesting that if there is no satellite data, then the Arctic ice was the same size for the 100 years before 1979?
Here is a scientific paper that measured ice coverage in the Arctic pre 1979.
Here is Steve Goddard’s splicing it together with more recent data.
171
It is pretty much accepted that the period from 1960-1970 was the bottom of a natural slightly cooler period.
It is this period that climate catastrophists have to use for temperatures and sea ice extent if they want to tell any sort of warming or ice loss.
They have to ignore any previous historical records or newspaper articles, (and/or massively adjust the temperature data)
… so as to confine their starting point to just to this lowest point in the real temperature data.
Its stupid and its purely propaganda for the warmist agenda.
And it only fools the most gullible.
61
“So newspaper reports is your idea of science?”
–
You mean the G..G..Gar..Gar…Guardian?
110
“Actually the trend is well over 120 years.”
Yep.. 300+ years. It was called the Little Ice Age.
But if you liked the weather back then, move to Siberia. !
181
The little ice age was part of a cooling trend due to natural factors that turned around once anthropogenic warming from CO2 kicked in. Please learn the difference between natural factors and climate change caused by mans emissions.
The climate does change naturally and has done for 4 billion years, which does not prevent man changing an atmospheric parameter, a crucial greenhouse gas that causes warming, by 40% and influencing current climate due to its enhanced greenhouse warming.
332
Please provide any evidence at all that the mini ice-age would have continued if not for an increase in CO2. Otherwise, please refrain from stating it as fact.
Your “Please learn the difference between natural factors and climate change caused by mans emissions” is revolting dogma to con the kiddies. There is nothing to learn except to memorise IPCC drivel.
242
Actually the pages paper suggested that conclusion based on the evidence from all over the globe by a large number of scientists from multiple countries.
I will stop when you guys stop using an event based on regional proxies and dominated by natural factors as proof of anything at all. Your comments on the lia are irrelevent to our current situation except to point to the fact that we were in a global natural cooling trend. How and why the planet turned around from that is what scientists have attempted to answer and does not have any bearing on the 120 years of instrumental records when natural factors are more well known. Science is not magic and does not have a natural temperature that it will keep trying to go back to. Your argument is simplistic and has no science basis. Climate changes for a reason and by natural factors the climate should have cooled and not warmed in the last 120 years.
332
How so ? Exactly which natural factors should have caused this cooling ?
191
He must mean the series of very strong solar maximums over the latter part of the 20th century. 🙂
110
Unless he is praising man made climate change for preventing a cold disaster.
30
HJ;
“I will stop when you guys stop using an event based on regional proxies and dominated by natural factors as proof of anything at all.”
–
‘Hey you guys! Stop leaving the goal posts in the same place’
80
HJ;
“Actually the pages paper suggested that conclusion based on the evidence from all over the globe by a large number of scientists from multiple countries.”
–
‘Bigger and better than the Gergis/Karoly paper!’
60
HJ, please “once anthropogenic warming from CO2 kicked in.” Jury is still out on that the little ice age only receded 160 years ago so even 120 years of records will show a gradual warming and the planet will warm a bit more before it reaches optimum for life to flourish.
CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas affected by the major green house gas – water vapour – both required for life on this planet – a thing to be cherished not put shit upon. Mammals are probably the most adaptable and will no doubt survive many changes on an evolving world, whether natural or not. No need to get flustered about it – embrace change, “improvise, adapt and overcome” it’s what we do best as a species, how else are we to learn to survive on inhospitable environments when we eventually populate the universe.
120
Heeby Jeebies
“The little ice age was part of a cooling trend due to natural factors that turned around once anthropogenic warming from CO2 kicked in.”….around 1600ish.
170
This guy is a seriously dopey twerp, that’s for sure.
100
He seems to have lost his links and references. I wonder if the Sks website is down?
20
Maybe he scratch his CD in frustration
30
Once you are over about 50ppm and 5% humidity, CO2 has basically zero effect.
This 40% increase is totally meaningless with respect to climate.
What we really need is much more CO2, 700-800ppm would be just fine for a start, and certainly make feeding the world’s population a lot easier.
…. especially if we stopped using food crops for biofuels.. an idea which is even more insanely useless than wind turbines.
140
You say, you say, you say… …but of course, warming, according to your gospel can’t be natural, can it?
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Come back after you’ve digested the contents of this blog going back in its archives all the way to its brginning, then spout off if you’re still minded to make a fool of yourself.
100
Moderation????
—-
No Roy I have no idea why your comment above was stopped either. Jo
10
I hope it won’t be too much to ask why my comment in moderation didn’t pass muster? No foul language. On topic. Short and to the point of the comment by Heeby Jeebies at #15.2.1 to which I was replying.
I’m greatly puzzled.
10
It must have been the repetition.
These moderation filters are getting far too smart.
How does that old radio show go … “Without hesitation repetition or deviation“
20
Joe,
Very perceptive! You may well be right. The linguistic device I used for emphasis could have turned out to be my undoing.
I suspect Jo has a commercially available filter over which she has considerable control about what it stops. But I would think that repetition of larger strings of text would be more worthwhile to keep in check.
00
Roy, HJ is MTR, same tactics, same arguments, turned up with the same questions online as MTR was privately sending me in emails. He is still all superficial politeness whilst being ill-mannered and rude on every other level. He uses condescending tones while offering unresearched simplistic explanations. He avoids acknowledging that he is simply unable to offer evidence or papers relevant to the amount of warming the models predict or their flawed assumptions. Instead he repeats ad nauseaum — like the dominating boor who turned up to the book club — the same inane points. He won’t read the hundreds of posts or thousands of comments which show his level of discussion is more primitive than the earliest posts at this blog.
He didn’t arrive at his belief by looking at the numbers, so there is no chance he will change his mind with numerical arguments. I fear he is simply innumerate. Try not to hold it against him. I do believe he genuinely is concerned, and perhaps his unfounded arrogance is a personality trait.
His comments are so inane they are “not even wrong” which is why many commenters don’t bother taking them seriously. Sadly he interprets this to mean we have no answers to the self-contradictory, delusional, irrational paragraphs he offers. But it takes time to unpack nonsense.
For example, follow the unreason above.
1. Firstly, evidence from scores of proxies and thousands of boreholes shows the Little Ice Age was global, which we have discussed dozens of times before. Even alarmists are not pretending it was regional anymore.
2. None of his favourite climate models or climate scientists have any idea what caused the cooling, nor why the warming started long before man-made emissions rose. Somehow magically, they know these mystery forces have stopped driving the climate.
3. Thus the following statement is “not even wrong”.
Should have cooled? According to the climate model in MTR’s head which apparently runs only on the numbers “yes” and “no”. He repeats the same fallacious asymmetrical argument with ENSO. A lack of El Nino now “shows” CO2 is causing warming because things are warm. But the presence of El Nino’s in the 80’s and 90s does not “show” that CO2 had less effect then.
Thanks to everyone who is patient with him, and simply points out the flaws. (The repetition of said bleeding obvious errors is inherently ill mannered). But newbie readers and lurkers appreciate this pale shadow of debate. It’s all we can get. There are by definition, practically no rational believers left to debate on climate blogs. I have given up waiting for one to turn up.
270
I see our comments crossed somewhere on the net.
I would not have taken him to task except that he persisted with the same inane line.
Anyway, thanks!
Roy
30
Joanne, thanks for that.
I don’t understand why otherwise rational people get so exercised about this subject although I do, sort of equate it with an almost religious zealotry.
I don’t believe that I am of that persuasion but am amenable to the possibility that I may be. I’m really not certain that I’m as objective as I think I am.
But, I think I know this for sure, I know whom I trust and I can count others than yourself, Anthony, Steve McIntyre and a few whom I’ll mention later.
I didn’t know who HJ is, or was, but now that you’ve given me the background, I do now.
That won’t prevent me from attempting to engage with him/her but it does give me a better grasp of why I’ll almost certainly fail!
Joanne,whatever transpires, allow me to thank you for providing me with years of education, enjoyment and hope thro’ your words and those of your respondents.
It’s perhaps sexist of me to rue that the ‘gentler’ sex is disproportionately represented in the climate-wars thro’ Judy, Lucia. Hilary, Donna and yourself.
Maybe, us guys should lay off the Kentucky Chickens:)
70
I just read HJ’s 15.2.1 comment and see the 40% bit. This was rgates’ favorite issue. (rgates must have used this everywhere he posted for about 2 years.) Insofar as the logarithmic aspect of GHGs is well understood and that 0.4 times a small number is still a small number I can quote a very good researcher of many years ago: “It makes no never mind.” I think you are correct – this chap is way behind the learning curve. The word “enhanced” in that comment is an additional clue.
80
Aw, Philip Shehan is entertaining. He can even do math proving that CO2 is no problem, and then ignore his own result.
Other than Phil though, you are right, there are no half decent adversaries to debate. Problem though is that almost all the main pro AGW sites stifle their own debate by censoring dissent, so you can’t even reliably take it up to their own ground. Other sites like the newspapers and the ABC don’t on the whole debate science like here and at Watt’s place. Scientific points are just ignored.
The debate is realy stratified, nobody of any note will debate here or at Watts where moderation is light touch and debate is allowed, because they lose, and lose quickly. Must be demoralizing to come here expecting to convert the fallen only to find out that the fallen own the debate (scientifically).
In my experience anywhere debate is allowed sceptics hold sway, the CAGW view only holds sway in places that practice supression of sceptical viewpoints like that hole in the internet realclimate.
70
Oh how hypocritical Jo. Superficial politeness while at the same time trying to make out I am really stupid and nasty. You forgot to add that I posted the same questions I put to you in email, because you could not answer them.
As to the little Ice Age, there are 2 points I would like to make. Firstly, that the little ice age and the MWP occurred does not say anything about todays climate, for or against AGW. Climate changes, not one climate scientist denies this. You are not accepting natural variations and cycles to make this argument (like normal) only using natural cycles and forces when it suits you. You hypocritically will use El Nino to blame on the warming, and then not accept La Nina for a pause in global temps while ignoring that it is a cycle that evens out over time (but temps have not) and that ocean temps have continued warming right through. Secondly you have been unable to prove that the world started warming before mans emissions, and you also ignore that their is research out ther that man has been affecting climate for a lot longer than the LIA or the MWP.
The real peer reviewed science does not support your opinion.
“Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1797.html
It is research of 78 researchers from 9 regional working groups from 60 seperate scientific institutions
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/science/foci/focus-2/themes/2k-network
23
Also the majority of the reconstructions do not support your opinion.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-6-10.gif
No but the best reconstructions do. See my links above. – Jo
22
So the past is not evidence of anything accept that climate changes, which everybody accepts. The question is what is causing the warming and climate to change NOW?
You cannot answer that question. By taking at least 60 years, and feel free to take 120, which takes into account a long enough period for ocean and ENSO cycles to even out, temperatures have risen by 0.6 to 0.8/1 deg c respectively. Solar in the last 60 has fallen, the current period has been very active for cooling volcanos, both big and small. The climate is changing, you would have to have your head buried very deep in the sand to not accept that. Hottest year in the US couple of years ago, hottest year in Australia last year, the wettest year in UK 2010 and last year, Droughts and floods in the same countries at the same time breaking records. Record blizzards and heatwaves. 12 of the 13 hottest years on record in the last 13. This is while we have had a predominantly la nina biased pattern over those 13 years.
and the fact is the person using simplistic non scientific arguments is you. Can you with a straight face say that your argument above (point 6) is not simplistic? Trying to say that a statistically significant parameter of warming does not count because you don’t think it is hot? Really? Are you not embarrassed saying that?
22
I’ve been asking you, MTR, since August for evidence that supports your faith in the climate models – evidence directly linked to the assumptions of positive feedback, especially with water vapor. I have provided you x 55 times with a link to The Evidence. These points matter. You have never provided any observational papers. Instead you demand I answer inane questions about motivations which are inherently unknowable. Thus “Not even wrong”.
It’s not worth replying to you, nor is it worth taking the hours to unpack the illogical drivel you post ad nauseum. You appear (sorry) to be not smart enough to recognize when you lose categorically. Possibly that makes you the “perfect” troll?
PS: You repeatedly ignore the evidence. You say there are “…no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age”. See the boreholes link I posted. 6000 measurements globally. There was a warm period, and a cool period. The boreholes can’t tell us when or how warm or how cold, but you are in denial of the obvious curves… Ljundqvist and Christensen proxies also. But what’s the point, you think droughts and blizzards are new or that they prove something when not even the IPCC agrees. It’s like arguing with a five year old.
PPS: I don’t say you are nasty. Domineering, delusional, narcissistic to some degree… yes.
PPPS: My point 6 is deeper philosophical question about statistical significance that even MIT agrees with. Your interpretation of what I said is so far from matching reality or any possibly quotation of mine, it stands as a good example of my point “not even wrong”. Not that I expect you to understand…
10
Tell ya what .
Look at this comparison graph of 1915-1945 and 1976 -2007
Now you tell us what caused the warming from 1915 – 1945, and why the warming from 1977-2007 is almost exactly the same, despite a series of the highest solar activity in probably thousands of years during the 1950-2000 period.
Certainly there is absolutely zero sign of any extra CO2 warming.
With all that increased solar activity (no, not just TSI) there should have been more warming in that second period.. but there wasn’t.
Obviously something is really controlling the warming of the globe to a significant extent…..
Maybe the extra CO2 actually helped keep it cooler, by providing that little bit extra radiative cooling.
There is plenty of science pointing to this being a valid hypothesis.
00
And of course you also need to realise that we are using data specifically adjusted to increase the trend in the 1977-2007 period.
If we were using raw data, there would be no need for any offset, the blue section would have a slightly steeper downward slope,
and the green section would be significantly steeper than the purple.
00
Jo, your evidence link is all opinion, and opinion that is fairly basic and not from a scientific viewpoint. You talk about church and religion etc, these are not scientific arguments and then your links are all to your own blog posts.
I did not ignore your boreholes or deny that the lia or mwp existed. What I did was point you to actual science that made the conclusion that they were more regional of expression and there was evidence that we were in a cooling trend until mans emissions began.
I also questioned your suggestion that this proves anything about today’s trends. This is false logic, natural climate has been changing for 4 billion years, nobody denies that, that does not preclude mans influence. I also pointed to a range of peer reviewed proxies that show the decline and rise out of the cooling trend.
I have provided evidence many times and sent a whole email chock a block, and still continue to use scientific sources and links, you ignore anything inconvenient as if they did not exist. Your point 6 has nothing deep in it, it is a simplistic and obvious attempt to ridicule a scientific point by using a simplistic argument, ignoring that anything that is hotter than normal is evidence irregardless of whether you think the actual temp itself is hot.
A report on the hiatus by trenberth
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/pdf
Ocean warming
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Also many recent papers on the effects of ENSO and volcanos on atmospheric temperatures.
Also climate trends are relative when they show increasing long term trends with no natural answer to them and consistent with AGW. Off course you will ignore them because staying simplistically ignorant of the actual science suits your argument.
01
Michael, my evidence link contains 80 peer reviewed papers. Your only response is to say it’s my opinion. But you provide no arguments nor evidence that I am wrong. Inane.
On the LIA you provide nothing to show it did not exist. The graph you offer supports my argument. The weak nature paper you quote says “all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880”. That’s the best you have?
You have not provided evidence specific to the points I ask for and that supports your faith. You merely toss links to papers as if providing something irrelevant and without a logical cause and effect connection is an honest discussion. It isn’t.
Your argument about point 6 is again, merely a statement that Michael the anonymous says it’s “simplistic”.
You cannot name a single paper that shows the positive feedback assumptions on water vapor over the tropics is correct.
Your arguments are bereft of actual evidence, and usually have no reasons either. This is time wasting. Your obvious tactic is to simply ignore our points and repeat the same biased material which we have already discussed over and over.
10
Not sure your comment on ENSO makes any sense. The El Nino years in the ’90s were hot years. El Nino years since have been mostly hotter.
Same as La Nina years – La Nina years are cool years. But virtually every La Nina year has been warmer than the ones the preceded it.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/figure-1-noaas-el-nino-la-nina-graph.png
(Excuse the krank graffiti on this image).
A sensible person can discern the pattern here:
There is variation between El Nino and La Nina years. But there is an obvious underlying warming trend that clearly shows through that variation.
I would not expect to have to explain this obvious fact to somebody who has had science training.
11
Exactly. There is a long warming trend that started before man-made emissions rose. The peak decadal warming trend was the same in 1870 as it was in 1990 (despite all those emissions). Ask Phil Jones. (0.166C/decade). Obviously CO2 has a minor effect.
I would not expect to have to explain this obvious fact to someone who is so condescending.
10
Again Jo, I am not interested in your opinion. Can you point to some science to confirm your opinion? You do realise that the industrial revolution kicked in in the late 1700″s and that mans influence in a myriad other ways was being felt long before then.
On looking at graphs of temperature I do not see the long term warming trend you claim. Can you point me to the global data set that you are using for this conclusion. Again the main point made by the science is not that climate changes naturally but why it is changing now, what are the consequences for us and can we do anything about it. You and your followers fail to see these basic points.
Your point about CO2 ‘obviously having minor effect’ is not justified by the information (or lack off) that you have provided. CO2s influence is on top of natural factors which could be either warming or cooling, which is why natural factors need to be examined and removed to see the effect of CO2. When this is done the models are entirely correct. Also when looking at previous data now known such as the last 60 years it is evident that natural factors have had a net neutral to cooling effect even though temps have risen by .6
So you have to ignore natural fluctuations and cycles and accuse bias and tampering in the figures (childish conspiracy theories) and ignore all the other locations energy can go to make your conclusions. Not very scientific.
11
Again Michael, your dishonest tactic is to claim the observations I present are “my opinion”.
If you cannot see a warming trend in the graphs I provided since 1700s there is nothing I can do to help you. Perhaps an optometrist can…
I posted these links earlier #15.2.1.5.2. You are timewasting.
There are 120 proxies here.
There are 6000 boreholes here.
Trends from 1870s are the same as the 1980s. Ask Phil Jones. 85% of man-made emissions were after WWII. Made no difference to the underlying rate.
00
Whern you say “man’s emissions” do you mean “Mann’s emissions”?
20
Heebie: Got a link (to a paper or something valid) on what started the Little Ice age, what the earth’s energy budget looked like at the beginning, middle and end of LIA? I could really use this as I have been studying this and cannot find an actual paper or anything to explain exactly what changed to start the LIA and how it ended.
Maybe a bit more information on how to tell when manmade is at fault and when it’s not. Currently, the only definition I can find is: If we were burning fossil fuels, it was man-made. If we were not, it isn’t. Wait, not quite accurate. If we were improving our lives by burning fossil fuels, then climate change is our fault. Perhaps you can give me a more scientific and well-researched answer. It would be appreciated.
41
Neanderthals discover fossil fuels, Neanderthals become extinct… AGW proven.
20
lol sherry, you must get your definitions from blog opinion sites and not the science.
It is caused by man if the science, the physics and the measurements confirm that co2 is a greenhouse gas that causes energy to be slowed down from leaving the planet. This is confirmed by measurements of the radiation bands affected by co2 leaving the planet and on the surface. That the total energy in the system is increasing by energy balance calculations. That energy is increasing as measured by increasing temps in the atmosphere, the
e oceans and melting of the cryosphere and rising sea levels. Also that all the other effects that are predicted by AGW are occurring such as the increases in sea level, melting cryosphere, warming oceans, increasing extreme weather in the form of droughts, heat waves, and extreme precipitation events. Also that the ocean is already being adversely affected by rising ocean acidification.
Finally natural factors have been examined through numerous studies and found to have provided a net neutral to cooling effect over the time temps have risen.
But you will ignore and forget all this the next time you post because staying ignorant of the science and the data fits your confirmation bias so that you can continuously say stupid things like ‘Currently, the only definition I can find is: If we were burning fossil fuels, it was man-made. repeatedly as if the answer has not been given to you many times before.
00
What is woefully dishonest is the claim that these things have switched on and off conveniently to express then hide the warming due to CO2 rather than admit that weather variations could just be natural cycles in the climate that are not predictable.
I can just see the look on my bookies face if I tried to explain that my horse was the winner, its just that natural variations in performance of horses made it come last.
150
Nothing has turned on and off. The Earth has natural variations that are internal to the system and occur over decades, which is why making conclusions over small time frames and not decadelly is not honest or scientific. Also these natural variations can be examined and have been and so we know where most of the extra energy going into the system has been going.
We also have natural variations that are external, such as the sun and volcanos, that will change the amount of energy entering the system. They can also be determined and examined and have been. The climate may not be 100% known, but it is not magic, and it is clear when all the factors and all the evidence is taken into account that the energy in the climate system is increasing by the enhanced greenhouse warming and the world is already suffering for it.
329
Was that plagarising a sceptic? “centuries” might have been the actual word used rather than “decadelly” (which has red squiggly line under it).
80
“the enhanced greenhouse warming and the world is already suffering for it”
–
Big Insurance.
70
the world is not suffering, it is continuing on quite nicely..
Declines in hurricanes,, declines in extreme events,
A nice stable temperature, somewhere above that of the LIA (thankfully) but not up to those of the MWP or RWP, (unfortunately)
There is no enhanced greenhouse effect.. it is all in your fevered brain-washed tiny little imagination.
140
So why are you banging on about manmade global warming?
Do you comprehend what you write?
So whats the number one greenhouse gas?
What caused the little ice age?
Or any other past fluctuation in climate?
But you have “mastery” of all information needed to see the hand of man.
Words fail me, when faced with a genius of your calibre.
Do you costar with the Roadrunner?
40
This is a classic patterned response for climate extremists.
10
Another quality publication by Nature (for the greater good of course).
The authors have missed the forest for the trees and, in the process, shot themselves in the foot. The first place CO2’s influence would show up is global temperature. There, radiative influence is greatest because other influences cancel in the global average. Regional temperature (from which extreme values have been cherry picked), on the other hand, is dominated by non-radiative influences from neighboring regions, for example, from nearby ocean or ice cover. If there is no net radiative influence on global temperature, which the UNSW luminaries have conceded, then there can be no net radiative influence on extreme values.
Let’s see, who pays for this stuff?
131
You have forgotten that the surface of the Earth is dominated by a very deep and vast ocean that is the destination of over 90% of the increasing energy imbalance of Earth. The atmosphere is less than 5% of the increasing energy and easily dominated by natural factors on short time scales beneath the long term warming trend.
Sad that you cannot see past your confirmation bias that allows you to ignore the totality of the science and focus on one short term parameter that has been explained repeatedly. When natural factors not included in the models are taken into account the warming is basically spot on.
333
The oceans have been there for billions of years. Heat did not start being absorbed by the oceans when climastrologists ran out of excuses for the non-performance of their models. Heat exchange between ocean and atmosphere is merely one more unknown and misunderstood forcing being deliberately misinterpreted and hyped for political purposes. The present data is so sparse that making predictions using it is analogous to taking a detailed map of a Sydney suburb and interpolating what the rest of Australia must be like. 9()% of the ocean as yielded no data whatsoever, being too deep for present technology to measure. Your posts are pure speculation, bad science and worse politics.
211
That should read, “90% of the ocean has yielded….
20
Heeby,
Please explain in your own words by what mechanism heat is magically transported into the depths of the oceans from the atmosphere, independent of variations in solar input.
Please demonstrate how LWIR back radiation can penetrate the ocean at any depth. Please also demonstrate how an alleged 0.6 w/ m2 energy imbalance can significantly increase evaporation from the ocean surface, and hence increase water vapour greenhouse effect to catastrophically warm the atmosphere, while simultaneously wending its way against the thermocline into the deep and against the net transfer of heat from the ocean back to the atmosphere.
And don’t forget the error bars with Q1, demonstrating of course that any putative warming is actually significant. In Q2, please bear in mind that the atmosphere has 3,300x less heat capacity than the ocean per unit volume. Should be a cinch, with all that settled science to draw upon.
251
lol.. Have you seen that little diagram that Trenberth? uses to derive that 0.6w/m2
Bl****y hilarious..
All the numbers down the bottom are like +/- double digits, and stated to the nearest whole number.. except one number, which is still something like +/-8, but has the “.6” on the end. And that’s where the .6 comes from.
A farce of the highest degree.
100
Oh Winston! Have some mercy on the poor guy. 😉
40
Why ?
20
Well… Err… Ahhh… There must be a good reason somewhere. Maybe if we work on it together??? 😉
Actually I thought it might tax his capacity so much he could have a fit or a stroke, something bad like that. But I see he’s a student of the John Brookes school — ignore all challenges and push on ahead at full throttle.
20
Its the turtles,they sun bake on the surface of the ocean and when they dive the heat from their shells is released into the deep oceans,so do the seals ,otters and whales…
50
Andrew,
Maybe, but you forget the contributions of all those CAGW fanatics bouncing round the ceiling of Hell!
/sarc for those that didn’t
30
Hi Winston, anything in my own words will not be evidence that would be accepted here. I am also confused as to why you think the oceans would not heat.
The oceans cover around 70% of the earths surface and directly receive a majority of the suns warming, add to that the added forcing due to the warming of the atmosphere and the back radiation of lwir due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Energy balance calculations show that the earth is accumulating energy, it is only natural that the majority of that extra energy would go into the oceans. They are both vast and deep, so as you say have tremendous capacity.
The evidence for this ocean heating is by direct measurements and by increasing sea levels due to thermal expansion. Many different ocean cycles such as ENSO and PDO can move the surface warming deeper into the ocean and out again. It is a balancing act in the whole system, everything that gains energy loses energy, if it gains more than it loses then we have an increase in net energy, if it loses it faster than it gains it then you have a net loss in energy. As said previously, calculations and measurements show that we are increasing in energy.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Therefore, even if the suns solar output stays the same, if we lose energy more slowly on the whole, then the energy increases. This energy can go into the atmosphere, oceans, land or in melting ice. All of which has occurred according to measurements, but due to natural cycles and variations in the system they will not be uniform. Sometimes one part gains, one part loses, but overall the total energy is increasing. The energy can move around using all the forms of heat transfer, whether it is radiation, convection or conduction.
Does that make sense, would you like some more links for anything? I put the ocean one there to show that the ocean heat is increasing, this is during the so called atmospheric pause while the Arctic is still melting as well as global ice volume generally. This is despite the fact the last 13 years have been predominantly cooling la ninas, small cooling volcanos have been very active and the sun has been flat to falling in output. Where is this added energy coming from?
02
Here are some useful links to peer reviewed science that may help. I won’t overdo it as I tend to get sent to moderation after several links automatically.
Paper on ocean continuing to heat at depth and where the 90% comes from
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf
Paper on the energy imbalance and its accumulation in the ocean.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Energy_Imbalance_OHC_v6_ss.pdf
feel free to query me, but considering my posts attract hundreds of replies (mostly not scientific but more abusive kind), and since I am actually quite busy at the moment I sometimes miss genuine questions and cannot practically reply to everybody.
HJ – You don’t seem to have answered Winstons actual question. – J
02
Jo, while I give credit for an attempt to at least answer in a roundabout sort of way admittedly, and to do so politely and with a minimum of condescension, I note that you are absolutely correct that he assiduously avoided answering my questions, particularly how LWIR can penetrate the oceans (which it can’t in spite of his attempt to suggest otherwise), and how this is even measurable as distinguishable from the enormous error bars that should be placed on this data, and especially lack of comprehensive, truly global, retrospective data pre-Argo era.
At least he got that right- the sun does indeed warm the ocean (as sceptics suggest), in fact it is the only thing (aside from unquantified fluctuations in geothermal heat sources due to fluctuations in plate tectonics- ?lunar tidal influence) which can warm them to any significant degree.
Well, that is such a vague and sweeping statement, which conveniently glosses over the fact that LWIR cannot penetrate the ocean beyond a few microns in depth, hence is physically incapable of penetrating and therefore heating the ocean at any depth, rather it can only enhance evaporation at the ocean surface/atmosphere interface and actually facilitate latent heat transfer from the ocean to the sky through phase changes in vaporisation of H2O.
No one doubts this, and given the modern solar maximum one would expect ocean heating to occur, but the presence of warming and sea level rise says nothing definitive about attribution, how much is due to solar influence versus any putative human component, for which there is no plausible mechanism.
HJ, then provides a link to NOAA heat content data which relies on Levitus 2012, a paper which pretends that ocean heat anomaly has risen by an almost statistically imperceptible 0.09 deg C since 1955, and can be measured to within error bars of +/- 2/1000 deg C! Who are they kidding? Since Argo only covers from 2003 onwards reliably down to 700m, the OHC data prior to that are less reliable measurements and over far less global and intensive coverage area, which has then clearly been grafted onto modern more high resolution data, thereby making a nonsense of their alleged (unsupportable) error bars. Once again, climastrologists pretending unfailing accuracy when the available data is patchy and inconsistent, and over too short a time frame to be significant. Also, by paying no attention to increased solar input in the current solar maximum that actually can heat the ocean, and ignoring lags in the release of that heat from the ocean now that solar inputs have declined to merely above average to average rather than maximum we have experience through most of the 20th century.
You almost have it there, the error (deliberately or not) climatologists make is in focussing entirely on radiant heat transfer, no account is made of small increases in solar input heating the oceans and their subsequent slow convective heat transfer that means that the different oceans lose heat at different rates according to ocean currents, geo-topography, latitude and solar influenced ENSO cycles. These factors have nothing to do with atmospheric CO2, nor with any putative attribution to mankind’s input to CO2 production. Once again, HJ demonstrates that in spite of having so little definitive knowledge in the field of climate science, they never let gaps in their understanding and data stand in the way of making definitive and unequivocal statements.
00
“Sad that you cannot see past your confirmation bias …..”
–
Sad!
30
“destination of over 90% of the increasing energy imbalance of Earth.”
B***S*** !!
51
Heebi whatsitsname states…
So lets have a look at that.
According to the grant seekers of the IPCC, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase of 3.7Wm2.
According to the mental giant that is HJ, 90% of this goes into the deep oceans.
( 90% of 3.7 ummm 9 times 7 is 63, carry the 6, 9 times 3 is 27 plus 6 is 33…hang on I’m just taking my socks off. Ummm that makes 3.33Wm2 goes into the oceans….I think) 3.70 minus 3.33 equals ummmmm 0.37Wm2. That’s how much of the warming caused by doubling of atmospheric CO2 stays out of the oceans, possibly where you and I live.
Maaan, I better get me another air conditioner or two.
Hey Heebie, do you read what you write?
82
So you’re saying that a negative feedback reduces by over 90% the atmospheric effect of trapped heat AND slows the warming phases – enabling the extremely short half life to pass harmlessly before all the extra CO2 is dissolved in the ocean?
Thanks for clearing that up.
20
Again, how about a full explanation of how models predict this? I really need a full description of what is involved in the modeling to understand how this works.
10
I’m reminded of Gergis et al.
It’s not the necessarily the science, the detail data analysis etc. which catches them out, but just elementary logic.
120
You need to keep it simple for HJ. If the upper troposphere is not hotter, there is no extra backradiation.
50
From the first manufactured headline seeking sentence of the article summary, the authors from the UNSW Climate Dept of Professor Chris Turney seem hell bent on enacting a version of Dumb and Dumber, perhaps because they’re desperate to raise cash after the international Antartic embarrassment they precipitated upon the august Australian institution that gave us The Ship of Fools, and one of the best laughs in recent times.
With their current offering, they reveal little more than their continued imprisonment in Green obeisance, their dependence upon politically correct funding and a 2014 reprise of earlier adventures.
Their temperature spectrum, a kaleidoscopic rainbow of colourful opportunity, was passed up in favour of monotonal green. It also has only one end, ‘the extreme end’….well you know, do I really need to tell you?…..the hot end.
Now, just try reasoning with the folk in Waterloo, Canada, who are experiencing as I write this record low temperatures or to the
realscientists that recorded the record low in Antarctica in August 2010 of -93.2C.The stink of desperation makes a delightful scent.
51
Whew! This post is one smart kick to the “Heeby Jeebies”–I mean, like, right between the peripatetic goal-posts! That’s just gotta hurt!
131
Not really, most of the arguments above are unscientific and shallow, as pointed out in my previous comment above. I mean seriously, one of the arguments was that even though it had warmed in a region it was not what would be considered hot, so it does not count. Give me a break, how embarrassing to see how simplistic the arguments have become.
327
“how embarrassing to see how simplistic the arguments have become”
–
Don’t feel embarrassed, HJ , Tim Flannery doesn’t!
132
John Robertson at 15.3.1.4 asked a question Heeby J that is damn simple and easily answered by most climate knowledgeable members of the public .
So here is the question again which it seems you have either overlooked or refused to answer.
I hope it was not because of any ignorance on your part on the subject.
What is the number one greenhouse gas?
Should be a very easy question to answer for somebody like yourself
Is it?
Carbon
or
CO2
or
Methane
or
Carbon dioxide
or
Dihydrogen Monoxide
or
CH4
or
Something else
If so what?
40
I’m still waiting for your detailed explanations.
22
Speaking of universities working on climate change, Have we heard anything from Macguire on their dispute with Professor Salby? Last I heard they hung him out to dry for finding a hole in the whole global warming hypothesis. I would truly like to know how he is doing and if he is any closer to publishing his findings. I had hoped they would have to be addressed by IPCC.
80
Your information is incorrect. Firstly his sacking had to do with not fulfilling his duties and nothing to do with climate change. Secondly his paper has failed peer review because his science is faulty. I mean not even Jo questions that mans emissions have increased CO2. lol.
319
Absolutely HJ, but manmade CO2 has risen by such an insignificant value that the argument is the consequences and whether they pose a threat or a bounty. I’m glass half full – how about you Chicken Little.
101
CO2 has risen by 40% since man has been emitting it. To suggest that this is a small change in a global parameter is woefully dishonest.
220
HJ
It is a significant rise in a number, but is the number itself relevant? Most of the Infra-Red that CO2 absorbs has already been taken by the first 50 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Please refer to Beer’s Law. It works.
But, playing devil’s advocate – let’s assume CO2 at the current levels is a significant driver of global temperatures. Referring to my Chemical Engineer’s Handbook, I note that the world’s oceans contain 50 tonnes of CO2 for each tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere. I also note that the solubility of CO2 decreases with increasing temperature. (The hot lemonade can experiment – try it.)
If we accept all three theories, then:
As soon as the earth warms, the oceans release CO2 (there’s plenty there)
Which causes the atmospheric temperatures to increase.
Which warms the ocean
Which releases more CO2
Which causes the atmospheric temperatures to increase
Which warms the ocean…
So, I’m sorry, old son. Either CO2 does not have any significant net marginal effect, or we’d be fried long ago!
Cheers,
Speedy
221
What all the alarmist modellers coveniently ignore is that their large positive feedback assumption results in a highly unstable climate system which is clearly not something which is evident from the historical record, looking at meaningful timescales.
IPCC models should be filed together with other fiction such as Malthus, the Club of Rome, Erhlich, Peak Oil, economic CGE models and ‘reality’ TV shows. They can be entertaining but tell us nothing of significance about the real world.
This from someone who’s job is centred on forecasting. Unlike those listed above I make the limitations of my efforts very clear … but they are required for planning purposes.
70
The CO2 effect is not even remotely saturated. Evans 2006 quantitatively measured the downward radiation and attributed the increase in downward radiation to different greenhouse gases. You have simplistically applied beers law by ignoring the different layers in the atmosphere, the different concentrations of gases in the different layers and that the earth is losing energy as well as gaining it. The changes are due to a slow down in the rate of loss due to greenhouse gases.
Also the ocean does not sit still, it moves and has differences of temperatures all around the globe, at points already releasing Co2 and at others absorbing it. currents sometimes moves heat deep into the ocean at at other times moves it up to release it, it is a complicated balance, obviously way above in complexity to your kitchen science and understanding. The net effect is that it currently absorbs more co2 than it emits protecting us somewhat, but as you rightly claim, as it gets hotter it may lose this ability.
Again you are simplistically using large numbers as science rather than looking at the net effects and the fragile balance that exists. We have been through some rough extinction events and extremes throughout earths turbulent 4 billion year history and have been a ball of ice to a fiery hell, so your understanding of a relatively stable earth that will conveniently adjust for us regardless of what we throw out us is again woefully simplistic and historically incorrect.
00
Much more is needed, however, to really get the biosphere out of its starvation rations.
700ppm + should be our aim.
Unfortunately there will not be any more warming to go along with it.
Still on the COAL fired electricity system I see.
No panic from you, then, hypocrite, just mouthing off. (just like most of the alarmist glitteratia.)
60
HJ
“CO2 has risen by 40% since man has been emitting it. To suggest that this is a small change in a global parameter is woefully dishonest.”
–
It’s your simplistic understanding that leads the wild ad hom statements and accusations, HJ.
–
Re-read Speedy’s post, above, HJ; three or four times, if necessary!
60
I don’t understand your argument about the demise of the LIA. Sure, in 2014 there is more CO2 than there was in 1750, but was there enough of an increase by 1800 to overturn a major climate event?
BTW, what caused the Roman Warming Period? (You can’t say that that was natural, and then insist on anthropogenic causes for coming out of the LIA.)
90
Why not? The earth has been changing for 4 billion years due to many different effects, variations and cycles of both short and very long term durations. Anything that has happened previously before man existed was obviously naturally influenced, whether by a meteorite, cooling sun, orbital cycles, volcanos, moving continents, cosmic rays etc etc.
But none of that prevents man from having an influence as we sit on this planet and make drastic changes to the biosystem in every way possible. The trick is to examine the time frames, the natural factors that we can measure and attribute, examine the many natural cycles and try to determine to what extent changes that are occurring are due to us, what effect that will have on us and can we do anything about it. That is what science is trying to do, and by the best science that we have available, natural factors have produced a net cooling while temperatures have risen with all the consequent other effects that have and are occurring, which is consistent with the science and the measurements of AGW.
00
40% increase in a gas that comprises .0397% of the atmosphere. Wow–I hope your employer gives you raise in that amount. You’d be soooo excited, right?
40
Oh Sheri the small number argument, how very scientific of you. I hope you get of that speeding fine when you argue that .05 of alcohol cannot have an effect to the judge. Or how about you try a pill that is only .04% of your body volume of cyanide, or try to adjust the tiny concentration of iron in your system by 40% up or down.
Your arguments are getting more and more embarrassing for you. For the record I would love a 40% increase in my income even though it is a tiny % (many times smaller) of global total income. It sure would make a big difference to me.
00
The tiny number argument is valid in many situations. Too bad your science and statistics skills are so poor you were unable to list any. Perhaps I can help:
A vaccine is a tiny amount of a disease causing virus or bacterium used to impart immunity to a disease.
Swallowing a teaspoon of ocean salt water does not kill you.
Botox injected in small quantities can prevent migraines.
Thus far, I am still waiting for you to explain precisely how that “small number” is wrong, which you obviously do not know.
00
There is nothing to argue Sheri, I have nothing to prove. As both yours and my examples show the tiny number argument is not a scientific argument, it is irrelevent. The important issue is the effect not its amount.
THAT is why it is a pathetic and silly argument to make in the first place. Similar to the ‘climates changed before’ argument. It is a ‘so what’ statement, on its own it is meaningless, designed to confuse and convince somebody without a science background, which is all most of your silly arguments are.
01
Why Heeby, you don’t know the answer, do you? If the effect is what is important, then post how the tiny amount has a big effect. Equations, diagrams, etc. If you can’t post that, then I guess you really don’t know anything about what you paste. It’s a fundamental argument in the global warming theory. You should be able to post it, if you actually know anything about global warming.
I have to admit, you have no “silly” arguments. You have NO arguments whatsoever. I really don’t see how you can identify silly arguments when you know nothing about you’re supposedly defending. You appear to be completely vacuous. Completely. Call names and huff and puff. So sad really………I was really hoping you could explain some of this. You know, enlighten us? Guess not. I gave you a chance to show your stuff.
Fail………
00
Sheri, you are the one arguing that a small amount means it cannot do anything. So if you don’t have an actual scientific argument then you should just say so, rather then make silly non arguments.
I have explained the greenhouse effect and discussed the empirical evidence many times. Perhaps it is time you went and learned something. The mechanics of Co2 and its ability to absorb and reradiate and how this effects the physics of the atmosphere are well known.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html
01
Just as I suspected. You don’t understand the argument. You are also assuming that I have not taken any classes and never studied this. Let me put it this way: My failure to agree does not mean I don’t understand.
Now, if it said God on your union card, I might care about your opinion. Since it doesn’t, I don’t. I could suggest a class or two with calculus that would help you to understand what you preach. What to take a go at one? They’re from the warmist camp. Show me how smart you are.
00
Man’s share of the global CO2 budget is no more than 4%. The majority of CO2 increase has come from out-gassing of the oceans as they have warmed since the LIA.
BTW. Congratulations for recognising that the LIA was global in extent, I think it would be churlish not to celebrate the ray of enlightenment ‘mid the encircling gloom of climastrology in which you are trapped. There’s hope for you yet.
10
You have simplistically and embarrassing ignored the fact that the planets biosphere absorbs as well as emits co2. In fact the ocean absorbs more co2 than it emits, protecting us in a small way from even higher Co2. It is called the carbon cycle, please research before making such a non scientific statement again.
Facts are that the net effect of all the natural movements of co2 is in absorption of a tiny amount of co2, which is why only 50% approx of our emissions stay in the atmosphere increasing global concentrations.
01
What is that phrase “tiny amount of co2”????????
00
Heeby Jeebies:
“Your information is incorrect. Firstly his sacking had to do with not fulfilling his duties and nothing to do with climate change.”
–
WRONG!!!
–
No evidence provided.
30
likewise bullock. My comment was an assumption on what I have read from the university, what he did in the US before coming here and how big a failure his science has been.
If you have some actual independent evidence I would like to see it.
01
If you had some independent evidence. We’re not so stupid as to believe a place that sacked a guy would tell the truth about why. Where’s the independent evidence? Would the word of the guy sacked count? No, of course, not because it does not fit your ideas. But he’s just as independent as the university.
00
Sheri, we have unfair dismissal tribunals in this country, if he had a case then it would be news by now, these things always come out and they would have to prove their case. So basically you are just making stuff up without any knowledge because you are backing somebody that is backing your bias. It would be nice if you based any kind of argument on evidence sometime.
01
So you have no outside verification is what you are saying. And I never said I backed him. Can you even read?????? You’re the one making things up now. Oh, but you can make things up, right? Cause you know everything, so it’s not making it up. You certainly rank amoung the top 10 most vacous trolls out there. With guys like you defending global warming, how can they win?
00
Climate Change Captains Log: PsyienceDate-2014.2.28
It may be solar variances or
It may be the oceans changing their diet or
It may be black Chinese carbon or
It may be volcanic aerosols or
It may be stratospheric DiHydrogen Monoxide or
It may be Pacific Trade winds or
It may be Stadium waves or even just one
God Almighty Coincidence but
IT MUST BE CARBON DIOXIDE because
We can’t think of anything else!
(H/T Whiners World (sp?) Via WUWT)
110
Actually science has examined all the natural factors and cycles and they do not explain the warming that matches the science behind CO2 and matches the fingerprints of what would happen with warming by CO2. It is those that cannot accept the science that make silly excuses like.
1. Its the sun! No its not, that has been cooling.
2. Its cosmic rays! Nope again, they have been going the wrong way.
3. Climates changed before? Yep, so?
4. Its cooling! No its not, 12 of the hottest years on record have happened in the last 13.
etc etc.
222
Bloody satnav. You’d think that they’d get it right by now.
I think its the dihydrogen monoxide that is causing all the trouble. The US Navy uses it for its new weapons, did you know?
70
Who let MTR aka Heeby Jeebies of his chain?
20% of the comments on this thread (at this time) are from this w@nker activist. What a life!
132
I can’t really see too much of a problem here.
HJ is a commentator here as we all are and is entitled to their opinions. I think that he/she is honest although I would prefer that his posts were a tad more polite but going in the lions den takes a lot of pluck.
It was the echo chamber of RC that made me attentive to other explanations for CC and woe betide that we follow in their footsteps.
Admission, I gave him/her a thumbs up just for being brave and await with a beating heart the possibility of attracting fist-fulls of red thumbs.
80
I would agree and give him a thumbs up if he was sincere and had a good point (I gave Gee Aye one), but he’s just quoting from a CAGW play book. Pure propaganda rather than throwing his hat into the discussion.
90
I’m with you Roy- Heebie is perfectly entitled to express his or her opinion in an open forum, and then back up what he thinks with evidence to support his or her contentions.
That’s why I’ve asked my questions in 16.1.1 above from the perspective of sitting in a lecture theatre in Cli. Sci. 101, as a newbie acolyte asking a question of the learned professor, whom I know expected will furnish my ignorant self with his comprehensive explanations of a basic tenet of climatology that might persuade me that my former scepticism is unfounded. Since “science has examined all the natural factors and cycles”, and I’m sure quantified them precisely to at least 1 decimal point, I think it only reasonable to expect that this knowledge would be imparted to me with logical precision and in convincing, as well as readily verifiable fashion.
I’m actually quite prepared to change my opinion on the head of a pin if the evidence for CAGW is really as comprehensive and unimpeachable as is claimed. However unsupported assertions, sweeping statements with broad generalisations without sufficient detail or factual observational evidence, or circular logic exercises do not remove the onus of proof from the alarmists sufficiently to convince this little sceptical student, but I await the avalanche of data that will inevitably change this stance with bated breath.
170
I hope you won’t be terribly upset if HJ doesn’t respond to your question. He seems to behave like a typical activist, come in spray the path line and then disappear leaving a mess behind.
50
party line
10
G’day RoyFOMR and Winston,
Note that I never stated that anyone should be banned or censored unless Jo decides that they should, after all it is Jo’s blog. Free speech allows you to stand on your soap box, not demand to speak from someone elses.
I agree with the principle of free speech and also the fact that HJ aka MTR is entitled to express his opinion, but if you think that he is here to contribute to the discussion you have rocks in your head.
HJ has proven in previous threads that he is just here to sow discord on this site by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. (I have heard this definition before)
No matter what evidence you provide, no matter how valid, he sweeps it away with a condescending and arrogant response.
Vic G Gallus summarised the activist currently polluting this site a few threads ago and I found it quite apt. (paraphrased below).
30
Hi Winston
I have tried to reply to your post 16.1…. above politely at 16.1.2.4
I did post additional links to peer reviewed science but unfortunately it has gone straight to moderation the minute I post links to science. Hopefully they will be allowed through shortly.
One was a paper by Lyman & Johnson (2013) on the heating of the ocean to lower depths and the other one was by Trenberth et al. (2014)on the global energy imbalance and the ocean aspect. The first one is where the 90% figure for the oceans comes from. Hopefully if it does not go through moderation you will chase them up on your own.
I will try to respond if you reply but I get a barrage of nuisance/abusive replies anytime I post so I miss genuine questions often. I am also busy at the moment. Thanks.
01
RoyFOMR;
“I can’t really see too much of a problem here.
HJ is a commentator here as we all are and is entitled to their opinions.”
–
Absolutely!
20
True! But that doesn’t mean we all have to sit back and swallow his opinion.
I’m not nearly to the end of his comments and I’ve not seen anything that tells me he knows what he’s talking about.
30
OMG, I just ingested some with dinner!! Is there an antidote? Please reply quickly.
30
George, the poison is in the dose not the compound itself.
The first real rule of Toxicology is ‘Don’t Panic’ followed by the caveat ‘ingestions may go down as well as up’
The second Toxicological rule of thumb is that potential victims of poisoning should never rely on the World Wide Web for prompt medical attention.
Time zones, alcohol habits and pornographic downloads may lead to off-target,first-responders time scales.
Yes, George, for you it may clearly be too late but as unfortunate as your untimely demise may be, May I point to a piece of comfort for others, this advice.
Scientific Models clearly indicate that stratospheric elevations will lead to deadly overheating.
You really should have turned down that post-prandial offer of the hot air balloon.
Empirical studies do contradict these findings but why should we believe them?
You, George, and I speak in the past imperfect, present tense here to your mourners need to know that your insistence on mingling CO2 exhalation with H2O injection raised the ambient temperature of our planet from a benign 255k to a suicidal 288k!
RIP, George, but you should have listened to your water anonymous advisors.
60
Wow! I wish I’d thought of that. 🙂
10
Heeby Jeebies
“4. Its cooling! No its not, 12 of the hottest years on record have happened in the last 13.”
–
–
1.It’s dry! No it’s not, floods are increasing!
–
2.It’s raining! No it’s not, droughts are more frequent!
–
3.It’s calm and still today! No it’s not, ferocious tempests are on the increase!
–
4.It’s cooling! No it’s not, 12 of the…………………..
70
Once you remove between 1 and 2 degrees C from anything before 1979, its very easy to get new “records”
That’s like saying “nah, Don Bradman’s batting doesn’t count”.
And you can just ignore the MWP, RWP, Holocene optimum. They never happened.
The real fact is that we are currently only just above the dangerously low temperatures of the LIA, and not anywhere near some of these previous natural warm periods.
110
it is this argument-
Heeby Jeebies
March 1, 2014 at 8:46 am · Reply
“Actually science has examined all the natural factors and cycles and they do not explain the warming that matches the science behind CO2 and matches the fingerprints of what would happen with warming by CO2.”
that has always left me wondering just how does one become so disconnected from reality. do you really believe that statement heeby jeebies? or is it just some argument out of the generic response catalogue when no response actually exists?
look at the logic for a minute
– the simple fact is that models which are produced by ‘the science’ fail to predict the reality even within a tiny timeframe. they drift so far off so fast that it is probable that they are not just 50% off ie a guess, they are biased completely wrong AND a guess.
– another simple fact is that it keeps changing! they cant settle on one idea of why the pause exists. it simple, if it were fact, there would be no flag post moving or model fudging etc, it would be just an equation and ONE correct model that has some small error margin.
how on earth, given those facts, can anyone say science has eliminated all the natural forcing from their thinking?! what a load of crap. you dont even need to venture into the subject matter to work out that the science just simply does not understand enough to predict ANYTHING of future climate. sure there may be a bit of warming from extra co2 in the system, but the feedbacks could completely eliminate that, and so far the case for that scenario is much more robust than the case against it.
80
“science has eliminated all the natural forcing from their thinking”
But mob, that is exactly what the climate scientists have done. 🙂
To them, natural forcings don’t exist.. until they need them to.
40
You may be arguing with yourself here HJ.
My list of ‘It may’ statements is a collation of recent statements from Climatologist Defenders of the Faith to explain why there is a ‘pause’. If I was an unkind sort of bloke I may have enquired as to why they forget to tell us about this stuff before – but I’m not and I didn’t.
As for the argument born of ignorance that it had to be CO2 responsible for global warming because ‘they’ couldn’t think of anything else is, sadly, correct –
I apologise that only latin I know is the Latin for don’t let the b——s grind you down.
So do be a good chap and argue with the psyientists who came up with the ideas; I’m but a poor messenger of those clods.
–
80
Typo: Greenland is 10C (75F)
Should be closer to 50F.
[fixed. thnx Gary. Mod oggi]
10
O/T – kind of
The Guradian has a piece on Tunreys gorebal worming summer antarctic jaunt.
Read the comments, – even the guardians readers are caning it. The only responses trying to defend gurney or the age appear to be…. drum roll people….. Guuardian staffers.
HAW HAW HAW. LOVIN IT BRO..
100
Latest studies show reduced sensitivity to a doubling of co2. Interesting that a number of the latest SL studies show deceleration as well.
These REAL world observations and studies are a real pain in the backside for the extremists and religious fanatics.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/28/more-evidence-for-a-low-climate-sensitivity/#more-104002
90
Yeah well when they finally get to a sensitivity of ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, they’ll be halfway to the truth. (but I won’t be alive by then)
20
Don’t be too certain of that. The rate of resiling on sensitivity appears to be a logarithmic function. You could still be dribbling your soup into your beard when enlightenment comes to the likes of HJ.
30
27 Feb: Guardian: Ian Sample: How computer-generated fake papers are flooding academia
More and more academic papers that are essentially gobbledegook are being written by computer programs – and accepted at conferences
Higgs would not have found his boson in today’s publish-or-perish research culture
In a more convoluted case, Bernard-Henri Levy, one of France’s best-known philosophers, was left to ponder his own expertise after quoting the lectures of Jean-Baptiste Botul as evidence that Kant was a fake, only to find out that Botul was the fake, an invention of a French reporter…
Academics are under intense pressure to publish, conferences and journals want to turn their papers into profits, and universities want them published. “This ought to be a shock to people,” Krohn said. “There’s this whole academic underground where everyone seems to benefit, but they are wasting time and money and adding nothing to science. The institutions are being ripped off, because they pay publishers huge subscriptions for this stuff.”…
Krohn sees an arms race brewing, in which computers churn out ever more convincing papers, while other programs are designed to sniff them out. Does he regret the beast he helped unleash, or is he proud that it is still exposing weaknesses in the world of science? “I’m psyched, it’s so great. These papers are so funny, you read them and can’t help but laugh. They are total bullshit. And I don’t see this going away.”
***• This article was amended on 27 February 2014, to cite Nature as the source of the story
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/feb/26/how-computer-generated-fake-papers-flooding-academia
and how fitting the article includes Henri-Levy, beloved “philosopher” of the left (especially “our” ABC) who has done more war-mongering in his life than Dick Cheney & Co, and who backed the Al Qaeda “rebels” in Libya who are now in power in a destroyed Libya (to witness that destruction u must now rely on independent reporters online because the MSM are finished with that sorry tale & have moved on to Ukraine, as has Henri-Levy, who visited Kiev on Feb 9 & said he saw no fascists among the rebels, & declared we are all Ukrainians now!):
2011 Guardian: Kim Willsher: Libya: Bernard-Henri Levy dismisses criticism for leading France to conflict
Philosopher says criticism of dealings with Sarkozy of no importance compared with ‘avoiding a bloodbath in Benghazi’
Unruffled as ever in his trademark Charvet white shirt, half-unbuttoned to reveal his tanned chest, the 62-year-old French philosopher is used to being in the line of fire – some of it, from Bosnia in the 1990s and Burundi in 2000, all too real and dangerous.
But last week the censure was political: the self-appointed intellectual-at-large was under attack for reportedly persuading France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, to meet and recognise the rebels in Libya…
All of which leaves this handsome dandy of a man almost totally indifferent. “Honestly, I don’t give a damn,” he says, as he drinks Ceylon tea in his favourite Left Bank haunt. “What has happened is so much more important than this derisory criticism. What is important in this affair is that the devoir d’ingérance [the right to violate the sovereignty of a country if human rights are being excessively violated] has been recognised. For the first time this concept was endorsed by the Arab League, by the African Union and by the UN security council. This is huge.”…
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/27/libya-bernard-henri-levy-france
10 Feb: Le Monde: Bernard-Henri Lévy : Nous sommes tous des Ukrainiens
http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2014/02/10/nous-sommes-tous-des-ukrainiens_4363410_3232.html
00
The perversion of statistical analysis now starts, with a fanciful thing like consecutive hot days. Having given up on a now measurable absolute world temperature refusing to rise, warmists are trying to exploit natural variations in local weather or as they put it, climate. This is to exploit the poor public perception of averages and random distribution. For example, last week the big story was that the basic award for production line fruit processors was half the National average wage. No one points out that half the people in Australia are below the average. Obviously in a fair society everyone should be at least the average or above. Similarly there is no analysis of the days without consecutive hot days or even cold days. The Lord Monckton’s “profiteers of Doom” are in full retreat but making it up as they go. While warmists still have retirement a decade or more away and a mortgage to pay, the squealing will be intense. Long words will be used fearlessly and new principles of science invented, not least the idea that heat can be hidden.
70
for what it’s worth!
28 Feb: Green Bay Gazette: Nathan Phelps: Coldest winter ever: Green Bay sees record 49th day below zero
Its not a good winter to be a weather record in Wisconsin. Or anything else, for that matter.
A pair of records fell within hours of each other in Green Bay early Friday.
At midnight, Green Bay made it 49 days with subzero temperatures, the most in a winter. The previous record, 48 days, was set in 1976-77…
Friday’s records follow two other records set Thursday, including the coldest high temperature. The day’s high was 8, breaking the previous record of 9 set in 1888. Thursday’s low dipped to minus 15, breaking the previous record of minus 14 set in 1897…
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20140228/GPG0101/302280167/Coldest-winter-ever-Green-Bay-sees-record-49th-day-below-zero
30
lots more in Bolt’s piece, but zealous swine-flu-vaccine-promoter Roxon was one of my least favourite politicians. can’t tell you how many people i know got sick after getting it:
1 Mar: Bolt: University is the last refuge of the failed Labor Minister
This week’s example comes from Victoria’s most Left-wing university, which absurdly honours a former Attorney-General who tried to censor political debate at the workplace – which I kind of expected a university to deplore:
The Honourable Nicola Roxon will become an Adjunct Professor within the College of Law and Justice at Victoria University… http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/university_is_the_last_refuge_of_the_failed_labor_minister/
2009: Crikey: Swine flu gives Nicola Roxon a boost
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/07/the-media-monitors-top-20-2/
20
“Honourable” Nicola Roxon?????
That HAS to be a joke !!
10
A very good interview with Patrick Moore after his presentation to Congress. It’s preceeded by three donkeys hee hawwing their fanaticism for their barking mad religious cult.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2014/02/28/exclusive-former-greenpeace-founders-reality-check-liberals
60
I have enormous respect for both that I’ve listened to who’ve shared the name ‘Patrick Moore’.
From the eccentric enthusings of the much lamented ‘sky at night’ presenter, I learned about the wonders of the Universe while from another Patrick I rediscovered what had attracted me, many years ago, to the importance of living respectfully with our environment.
I truly admire both but for courage and convictions the latter gentleman is a living hero to me.
For years, as my disdain for the dishonesty and mendacity of certain individuals in the brackish waters of climate-politics grew, I mistakenly confused genuine environmentalism with the morality of the self-elected, activist-fanatics who’d grabbed the microphone.
I don’t associate ‘sceptics’ with deniers, contrarians or, in any way, anti-science but many, in authority, do.
I understand their belief, that’s their worldview and we all suffer from similar albeit differently directed prejudices but their contempt is palpable.
The latter Mr Moore has reminded me that true environmentalism is based upon a considerate and realistic POV of our shared world and not a party-political and point-scoring melee of tribal interests.
Thank you, Mr Moore. Both of you.
80
Hm! JenJ then HJ aka Heeby Jeebies and no doubt a few others of short duration from the very recent past and more to come but it certainly seems to have all the hall marks of a co-ordinated campaign to find through some trial runs an eco-nazi alarmist troll that is capable of creating trouble on this site and hopefully destroying JoNova’s reputation and site either by rousing very strident and nasty comments from the regulars here which don’t go down at all well with the lurking public or creating dissension between this site’s whole gamut and range of denizens
And if one of the trolls looks like being capable of doing some damage they will re-appear on regular basis under new guises and from a different web addresses to prevent Jo from recognising the source.
A tactic very akin to that waged by the eco-nazi alarmists against the skeptics on the Weather Zone climate forum last year which involved getting a couple of moderators into position with a very considerable bias against skeptics as well.
The eco -nazi alarmists managed after a lot of back door pressure using Fairfax, the current owner of WZ, to get the climate forum shut down and then boasted about it on the HotWhopper site.
Anthony Watts has a short list of the hate WUWT blogs listed here
A good starting point for the current invasion of global alarmist wack job trolls is quite likely to be the fanatical warmist run Mt Beauty [ Vic ] based Hot Whopper site
Anthony’s summation of the “HotWhopper” site proprietor.
[ quoted]
Proprietor: “Sou from Bundangawoolarangeera” aka Miriam O’Brien of Mt. Beauty, VC, Australia
Some of Miriam’s skills: being a “a sixties-something woman with an interest in climate science“, sniping at WUWT, snark, Twitter snark, photography, business consulting, being on a board of directors.
Reason for creating the blog: nowhere else to go. She found no traction for her style of commenting at WUWT, which was really flypaper for her getting comments to reinterpret/repeat as nastiness on her Twitter feed, catching even the attention of our most tolerant and beloved late moderator, “REP”. Given her daily rants, she has now qualified for “Internet stalker” levels of infatuation and invective. Assigned to the permanent troll bin.
[ end of quote]
90
So….you are peddling the Gospel according to Anthony Watts – a uni drop-out who worked for a while as a TV weather-girl.
Sorry, I prefer to put my trust in real scientists with real qualifications and a real record of research and publication.
————————-
REPLY: Yes, the argument from authority fallacy. No real scientist would make that mistake… – Jo
11
Jo, you should probably change your side bar link for Delingpole to this.
Thanks! Done – Jo
40
Perhaps one of the saddest commentaries on the state of climate science and science overall is from inside the heart of climate science by the Proffessor of Earth Sciences at Georgia University, Judith Curry, the former arch warmist turned slowly to a very definite and acerbic skeptically slanted outlook.
Judith is now the creator and blogger for the heavily populated by highly argumentative thick hide’d academically trained denizens, Climate Etc blog
Judith comments in her post Steyn et al. versus Mann
[quoted]
With regards to climate science, IMO the key issue regarding academic freedom is this: no scientist should have to fall on their sword to follow the science where they see it leading or to challenge the consensus.
I’ve fallen on my dagger (not the full sword), in that my challenge to the consensus has precluded any further professional recognition and a career as a university administrator.
That said, I have tenure, and am senior enough to be able retire if things genuinely were to get awful for me. I am very very worried about younger scientists, and I hear from a number of them that have these concerns.
[end ]
I find that an appalling indictment of Climate Science as it stands today and I find it even more appalling that the rest of the enormous publicly funded science industry and establishment has just sat idly by while this disgraceful and grossly discriminatory situation is allowed to fester in the very guts of the publicly funded science establishment, a science establishment that owes everything to the public that funds it, a point that Judith then comments further on.
[quoted]
Tenure is an amazing privilege for academics. And now we see in the Mann/UVa case, that the establishment academics are worried about fear of embarrassment by public disclosure and fear that those who dislike their findings will conduct invasive fishing expeditions in search of a pretext to discredit them.
Come on, big boy pants please. We are talking about publicly funded research, and a primary concern is supposed to be avoiding embarrassing the scientists?
[end]
The Science industry has a nefarious climate science created cancer eating at it’s very guts but is too damned self centred to see this or to comprehend just how much it is falling in esteem within the public’s eyes as that cancer eats away at it’s esteem, respect and the former complete public confidence in the integrity, the ethics and the morality of all of science.
. The science industry across it’s entire spectrum has failed totally to do anything to stem and stop or eliminate the climate science cancer before it destroys vast tracts of the publicly funded science industry.
120
My apologies, Joanne, if this is a repeat of a previous comment.
“The average July temperature in Nuuk, Greenland is 10C (75F)”
Typo?? 10℃ is 50℉ and 75℉ is 23.89℃.
cheers,
gary
[fixed. thnx gary. mod oggi]
00
28 Feb: NoTricksZone: P. Gosselin: Spiegel On 15-Year Pause: “Biggest Mystery In Climate Science” … Scientists Caught With Their Pants Down
At the online Spiegel here, science journalist Axel Bojanowski writes about the 15-year pause in global warming, which Nature here calls “the biggest mystery in climate science.”
Bojanowski describes a situation where scientists have been taken aback by the unexpected pause, and are now scrambling for a way to explain it, or to deny that it even exists…
At the end he quotes University of Colorado environmental sociologist Maxwell Boykoff, who offers climate scientists a little advice on communicating the science:
“Our studies have shown which strategies promise no success: vindictive, condescending and dogmatic lecturings.”
http://notrickszone.com/2014/02/28/spiegel-on-15-year-pause-biggest-mystery-in-climate-science-scientists-caught-with-their-pants-down/
30
28 Feb: Bloomberg: Jim Efstathiou Jr: Warming Pause Doesn’t Reverse Scientific View on Climate
“Our expectation as scientist always was to see very complex changes in the average temperature of the planet, and that’s exactly what we see,” Benjamin Santer, research scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, said at a briefing today. “The key point is that the stasis, slowdown as people have termed it over the last 15 years, does not fundamentally invalidate our understanding of the human effects on climate.”…
“There will always be cold nights and cold days, but what we expect is that they will be rarer and rarer,” Fung (Inez Fung, professor of atmospheric science at the University of California, Berkley) said…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-27/warming-pause-doesn-t-reverse-scientific-view-on-climate.html
10
The “individual’s” name isn’t Who Fung DUNG?????
00
Jo
University of NSW Climate Scientists? Where have we heard of these guys before – I think they’ve been in the press lately…
Something about global warming causing all that ice to freeze up around their ship, perhaps? Oh, yeah, and can we have a pick-up for 52 non-climate scientist tourists from the Antarctic please – put it on the tab marked “Taxpayer”.
These guys are incredible – in the literal sense.
Cheers,
Speedy
40
The taxpayers won’t be footing the bill for the ship of fools.
20
Scaper
Great to hear. Does that mean we need to put Turney back where we found him? On the ice – in Antartica? That would surely give him an appreciation of the Mawson experience – and of that lovely warm sun up there in the sky…
Cheers,
Speedy
21
I believe Turney is busy writing a signtific paper with Flannery.
“Global Warming is Causing the Extinction of the Polar Bear in Antarctica.”
Of course there will be another serious signce expedition paid by crowd funding.
Episode 2 of the ship of fools.
50
And maybe still another future and co-operative paper in the works for Turney with Cook et al on the extinction of the Arctic Penguins due to the lack of Arctic ice.
They can probably use the SCIgen automated science paper program to produce that.
Ref;
20
scaper & ROM;
=
I have it on good authority that Tiljander et al have regrouped and are busily studying the sudden and dramatic extinction of the Bi-Arctic Penguin Bear: Ursus Invertus!
20
That’d be a mistake the first expedition to prove sea-ice melt ended in getting swallowed by sea-ice any expedition to prove extinction of Polar Bears could end in a similar way.
10
P.S Except in Antarctica probly safe there.
10
P.P.S Then again there wasn’t supposed to be sea-ice either…
10
Turney should be ICED permanently …..
01
28 Feb: Trust.org: Reuters: Barbara Lewis: EU summit to focus on industry rather than climate-draft
A European Union summit in March billed as a step in the bloc’s efforts to combat climate change will focus on strengthening Europe’s industrial base, a draft document seen by Reuters shows.
The draft is likely to increase worries among the environmental lobby, which fears its argument that green jobs are the best way to shore up Europe’s fragile economy is being ignored.
The summit “will seek ways to enhance the European industrial base as a driver for economic growth and jobs,” the document says, and adds that concerns about EU industrial competitiveness should be woven into debate on all policy, including climate…
“The regulatory framework both at European and national levels must be made more conducive towards investment and innovation and the reshoring of manufacturing jobs,” the document adds, referring to a drive to reverse a trend of losing employment to other regions of the world…
Germany is a major exception as its industry generates nearly 22 percent of economic output and it has led calls for the manufacturing base to be protected…
The renewable sector, meanwhile, says it will suffer and green jobs will disappear without stronger policy…
http://www.trust.org/item/20140228171542-z031u/?source=hpbreaking
10
Oh Yes those “green jobs”.
The ones that cost MILLIONS of DOLLARS each to create !
Very efficient !
Economic insanity: Obama spends $11 million to create each ‘green’ job:-
http://www.naturalnews.com/040396_green_energy_jobs_president_obama.html
10
UNSW: The Ship of Fools university.
70
The School for a Fool…
20
“The average July temperature in Nuuk, Greenland is 10C (75F)”
Mistake.
[Thnx. Actually I was editing it when your comment came through. We appreciate vigilant eyes, thank you. Mod oggi]
10
The Grant Seekers state….
I totally agree with this statement. IT IS ill-chosen and misleading.
As far as I’m concerned, warming ceased 17 years ago. NOBODY, but NOBODY knows if warming will commence, or cooling will begin.
To say warming has paused or has gone into an hiatus is to PRESUME that it will recommence. HEIGHT OF PRESUMPTION and unscientific.
Do not get sucked in by the word games these people are so good at. There is no other way to describe the past 17 years other than to say warming has ceased.
110
The pause is their term, repeating it with a slight sneer is just my way of rubbing it in.
Remember half of them have not got the memo yet, they keep insisting there is no pause.
Soon these parasites will be attacking each other as they disolve into smaller and more vicious cliches each week.
30
Update XIIV from ground zero,
The Moronville Messenger asks the question:
“Is this the weirdest summer weather you have seen in South Australia?”
Response 1.
Yes, sometimes………..its been cold and other times the weather has been dangerously hot.
Response 2.
Its been crazy, with heaps of ups and downs in the temperature
Response 3.
The weather is kind of weird when its hot it can also be really wet.
Response 4.
Yes, its been hot one day and then cool the next.
Then a voice of reason appears
Response 5.
Its not really weird. The weather changes now and then, its to be expected.
1 in 5 people understand the weather is not supposed to be the same every day, just how stupid are these other 4?
101
Did i upset a South Australian princess?
12
All I’ll say is beware of a man bearing a barrel.
30
Here ya go, Crakar…
If the ABC was Relevant Pt 25.
(The Merchant of Doom.)
Bryan: Greens Senator Christine Milne, welcome to the program.
John: Cheers Bryan.
Bryan: Senator Milne, what is your reaction to the Gillard government’s proposed flood levy?
John: Disappointed Bryan. Bitterly disappointed.
Bryan: You mean at a government’s cynical and opportunistic tax grab to prop up a wasteful and popularist agenda?
John: Quite the opposite Bryan. The Flood Levy is a sorry saga of lost opportunities.
Bryan: Including the opportunity to trim wasteful government spending and deliver value to the Australian taxpayer?
John: No Bryan. Delivering value to the Australian taxpayer is not Greens policy.
Bryan: Pardon?
John: Delivering value to the Australian taxpayer is not Greens policy.
Bryan: Why not?
John: Because delivering value to the Australian taxpayer is almost as bad giving people money Bryan.
Bryan: What’s wrong with that?
John: [Exasperated.] Because if you give people money, Bryan, next thing you know, they’ll be spending it – on things!
Bryan: But don’t people need things?
John: Allow us to be the judge of that Bryan.
Bryan: What’s wrong with “things”?
John: The Environment, Bryan. The Environment. “Things” require other things to make them. And even other things to package, deliver and distribute those things. Whereas government spending is almost always environmentally neutral.
Bryan: How come? Don’t governments spend money on things as well?
John: Sometimes Bryan. But we get it right most of the time.
Bryan: Then what does government spend money on?
John: Invest, Bryan. Invest. Governments invest. In policies, initiatives, forums, programs, enquiries, reports and commissions. None of which produce any thing.
Bryan: That’s terribly unproductive.
John: Thank you Bryan.
Bryan: ???
John: But the very last programs that this government should be slashing are the greenhouse initiatives.
Bryan: Why?
John: Because it was global warming that caused the floods in the first place Bryan.
Bryan: So no global warming, no floods?
John: The floods were caused by global warming.
Bryan: How? What’s the connection?
John: Scientists believe that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing significant and harmful warming of the planet. Higher temperatures increase the rate of evaporation. More evaporation means a more humid atmosphere. More humidity means more rainfall. More rainfall means more flooding. QED Bryan.
Bryan: But doesn’t global warming cause drought? Tim Flannery, the BOM and the CSIRO et al all say so…
John: And they are absolutely right Bryan. Which is why governments have invested in desalination plants instead of water catchment dams.
Bryan: So global warming causes both drought and flood?
John: Yes Bryan. It’s worse than we thought.
Bryan: How does it do that Senator?
John: Scientists believe that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing significant and harmful warming of the planet. Higher temperatures increase the rate of evaporation. More evaporation means a drier landscape. A drier landscape means drought. QED Bryan.
Bryan: So global warming causes both floods and drought?
John: I’ve already told you so Bryan.
Bryan: So there’s no chance that the rain can occur during a drought?
John: Of course not Bryan – it wouldn’t be a drought then, would it?
Bryan: But what happens when it’s not flooding or droughting Senator?
John: If man continues to recklessly emit dangerous levels of greenhouse gases, then floods and droughts will become commonplace. And what we now know as “average” climate will be a novel and exciting event. And this novelty will itself generate a fresh hazard.
Bryan: A fresh hazard?
John: Yes Bryan. It’s called DNC.
Bryan: DNC?
John: Dangerously Normal Climate. Which is a direct result of global warming.
Bryan: How can normal climate be considered dangerous?
John: Consider this scenario Bryan. In the course of a perfectly commonplace drought, a dangerously normal shower of rain occurs. Since it’s not a flooding rain, you neglect to dress appropriately. You go outside, get wet, catch a cold, and die. This is typical of the tragedy that could be repeated millions of times each year in the eastern states alone.
Bryan: That sounds serious.
John: It is Bryan. Which is why we must take urgent action now.
Bryan: So what is being done to combat DNC?
John: Even as we speak, Bryan, top scientists at Our CSIRO are preparing a robust and definitive report, clearly demonstrating the potential for conclusive links that could connect man-made CO2 emissions to Dangerously Normal Climate.
Bryan: And when did the CSIRO first become aware of this new and deadly threat to our very existence?
John: Just as soon as I tell them Bryan. Lend us a phone?
120
Excellent, Speedy! As per usual.
–
I hope Senator Milne isn’t lurking – she’ll have the’heeby jeebies’!
40
LOL, well done once again Speedy, actually i read a bit more of the Moronville messenger and there was an article which claimed the hot weather here was caused by AGW, however the average temp for the months of Jan and Feb will be just that average because the start of Jan and the end of Feb was quite cool.
Apparently this was all predicted and is therefore climate change in action………..i s*** you not.
20
Seriously? Ok lets try this
LOL, well done once again Speedy, actually i read a bit more of the Moronville messenger and there was an article which claimed the hot weather here was caused by AGW, however the average temp for the months of Jan and Feb will be just that average because the start of Jan and the end of Feb was quite cool.
Apparently this was all predicted and is therefore climate change in action………..i (Ovine excrement) you not.
20
I think it was someone on Bishop Hill who came up with the best desctiption of this kind of crap: “Climate Bollocks”.
30
–
I hope it wasn’t in reference to Dame Julia Slingo!
00
As they put forward ever more hypotheses and test them independently the result is less and less compelling. This has been called hypothesis fishing and reflects poorly on the fisher’s understanding. There are countermeasures and corrections but, generally, any stated finding ought to be rock-solid. These folks are just pounding sand.
30
CLITANIC — laughing outloud
Eugene WR Gallun
30
I think the “Clitanic” is in reference to that ship stuck in the south polar ice for the last couple of months. It’s lucky it’s an icebreaker, otherwise they might really be at the bottom along with their namesake, hull crushed by movement of the ice around it.
I’m wondering if there’s a tourist business opportunity in it. Buy it from Russia, fix it up as a floating hotel like the Queen Mary here in Long Beach harbor and fly tourists out to it for a taste of what “real climate science” is all about.
You could name each deckchair for some aspect of climate science that hasn’t stood up to even basic scrutiny but you’d have to be careful to keep them deiced. 😉
10
I notice that no one called me out for misquoting Jo at #14. I took a little poetic license with Clitanic to make what I wanted to say fit the altered context better.
Y’all need to be sharper and more alert. 😉
00
Nope, all’s looking well at #14. Did the moderation filter perhaps catch or correct that one 😉
00
Further evidence to stop funding Australian Universities.
Let’s put the money to good use.
30
This is a extremely laughable piece of sphistry dressed-up as science. Stupid nonscience papers cause extreme laughter?
Where is the complimentary studies on extreme cold period, or long periods of average temperatures?
Well done Joanne is highlighting this nonsense that public money has paid for.
70
I don’t suppose this moron could keep it simple by ignoring the temperature and just tell us how many joules entered the earth system and how many joules left the earth system and the period of data collection. With only that information I can sit here in my ‘jammies and tell the people of the world if Earth cooled or warmed over the recorded period.
In pseudo code it looks like this:
let planet = Earth
let joules.in = total incoming energy in joules to planet from all external sources
let joules.out = total energy in joules emitted from planet by radiation to universe
If joules.in > joules.out then planet = warmed
if joules.out > joules.in then planet = cooled
20
Well done Jo Nova;another excellent expose.
10
Keep at them Jo you are doing a great job in revealing the untruhs and inaccuracies that the climate alarmist continue to publish. This is just another desparate attempt by these people using smoke and mirrors in order to fool and frighten ordinary folk into believing them. Presumably they get paid for this rubbish also!. Geoff Williams
40
Grasping at straws is a term that comes to mind!
00
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/unsw-climate-scientists-shift-goal-posts-publish-irrelevant-extreme… […]
00
The distressing thing with you articles, Jo, is your apparentfailure to grasp basic scientific understandings. Science never defined Global Warming in terms of surface temperature rise, that is a feature of AGW “skeptic’s” aguments.
[Not even wrong. 1. Who appointed you spokesman for “science”? 2. Alarmists repeatedly talk of global warming as surface temperatures both in measurements and predictions. 3. The “distressing” thing in your comments is your inability to start from a rational point. – Jo]
The scientific body has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that Global Warming, as the term suggests to anyone with a penchant for accurate use of English, refers to an increase in the energy content of the Global Environment.
[Rojer Pielke was the first I believe to point out 90% of the energy was stored in the ocean… Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335. – Jo]
Average surface air temperatures are just one of many features if the biosphere that are affected by the warming taking place induced by the unnatural human activitial excessive release of CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere.
[Yawn – Jo]
It has been repeatedly pointed out in this forum that heating of the Global Environmental System has a multitude of effects. The one that perpetually harp about is the lag in average surface air temperature rise. This lag is due mainly to the temperature variation effect from atmospheric moisture content and the massive out flowing of cold water and air from the arctic regions as they warm.
[Do try to write real sentences. Who is harping? What lag do you refer to? – Jo]
While you persist with you very shallow perceptions of the effects of Global Warming you are failing to appreciate the severity of the changes underay. Here is an extract of a study that looks at the interplay of these forces at the extreme end…
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018203006679
[Apologies for my “shallow” grip where I only use logic and reason. I do not have your mystical gift whereby events 250m years ago offer us detailed insight into 50 year trends today. The Antarctic did not even exist then. I am unable to believe the resolution of paleoclimate studies can be that good. PS: Your paper appears to rely on models we know are broken. – Jo]
This mentions two observable features now underway. One is the reduction in polar mixing. There is a recent study which where a submarine was used to examine the intensity of the Arctic “sinks” and it was observed that the have reduced from a usual seven to as few as two. The other is the mention of the expansion of ferrel cell and even merging with the hadley cell as researched by Farrel which is, in conjunction with the huge North Atlantic low pressure systems, I believe, observable in small part today. This is what I belive to be causing the huge outflowings of cold Polar air that is causing so much economic damage to Europe and the US.
[The miracle is that life on Earth survived the Holocene peak a mere 7000 years ago. How did we manage? – Jo]
The UNSW study is quantifying is that where the temoerature suporessing effects of humidity and polar air mixing are not present extrme temperatures are becoming more extreme. And I have to say, Jo, that you 6 point rebutal is just hysterical nonsense which has to raise questions of either your ability to understand the information or your intentions in publishing such distortionary argument.
[Oh I am crushed. Mr BilB, anonymous commenter, finds my rebuttal hysterical (congrats for spelling it correctly). He gives no reasons, but he scores 10 on the “condescending” index. – Jo]
00
Yawn?? Yawn says it all, Jo. You are asleep at the wheel of skeptical opinion.
The linked study is about the mechanisms of Global Energy balance and their consequences. These types of studies are the best we have to guage our exposure to the changes that we have triggered with our massive over consumption of fossil fuels and consequent CO2 emissions. These mechanisms have begun to change and their combined influence is what me must be concerned about. The worst case is that the Northern Hemisphere moves towards an equable climate. That might sound nice and cosey to have more tropical temperatures at the north pole, but the overall system consequences will be disasterous because the climate won’t stop where we think it would be nice. The climatic overshoot is way beyond anything that our civilisation can withstand with the tropical belt becoming a hellish place and expanding northward. The time frame for these kinds of changes to take place are entirely unclear, but the first thing that will happen is that the Arctic to become permanently ice free. During that process Europe and North America will continue to experience cyclically drowning weather and floods of freezing air during early and late winter. The economic damage will be consistent and unrelenting. at the end of this phase of change temperatures and humidity across much of Europe will rise considerably and the permafrost will continue to thaw at a dramatic rate releasing its trapped methane. The ice cores that you like to draw your conclusions from also say that such transitions do occur in just a handful of decades, the ones we are living in now for instance.
[You have no evidence, only opinion, and little connection to reality. …”to have more tropical temperatures at the north pole” You are kidding right? “Not even wrong” — Jo]
We are all along for the ride now as it is clear that the transition is consolidating.
Life itself on Earth is not in danger from Destructive Climate change, it is our civilisation that is. Parallels with the survival of early humans during the Halocene are ridiculously irrelevant to the dilemma faced by a burgeoning over population of human beings facing consecutive dramatic climate change, economic disruption and resource depletion.
Apologies for incomplete sentences etc in the previous comment, it was constructed on my phone where the screen size limits the scope for easy typing and good editing.
[Accepted. Thanks – Jo]
Jo, I would rather conclude that you have a poor grasp of the science, than determine that you have a good grasp of the material but intentionally misrepresent it in order to dupe a gullible following into supporting a skeptical cause, where the sole purpose from what I can tell is to somehow achieve “small government”.
[Intentionally misrepresent what exactly? Make that a quote please, or retract the claim. And if you actually read my blog, instead of attacking what you “think” I say, you will see you have misunderstood my purpose too. — Jo]
I know that you claim to be “unconvinced” by the science. I don’t believe that you have proven that point as most of your arguments are rhetorical and unscientific.
[Well being unscientific according to the anonymous follower of the Authority fallacy, who cites no quote nor evidence. So what? – Jo]
By the way
http://blog.cafefoundation.org/solar-cells-collect-light-display-art/
link to 35% efficient flat solar panels not far away. These will not be cheap for quite some time, but it can be done. Sadly moonlight is just .1 milliwatts per square meter so even this efficiency can’t squeeze anything out at night. Batteries are required.
[Congrats. Efficient solar panels and feasible batteries have been “not far away” since 1970. – Jo]
10
Sydney Observatory saw 20% more days over 35C from 1921-1950 than from 1981-2010.
Maybe CO2 is highly selective.
00
The greenhouse conjecture is demolished by the Loschmidt effect.
It is wrong to assume Loschmidt’s gravitationally induced thermal gradient does not evolve spontaneously in a gravitational field. It is the isentropic state of maximum entropy with no further unbalanced energy potentials. You cannot explain why the Venus surface temperature rises by 5 degrees spread over the course of its 4-month-long day with any radiative forcing conjecture or greenhouse philosophy. The Venus surface receives barely 10% of the direct Solar radiation that Earth’s surface receives. It would need over 16200 W/m^2 if radiation were heating the surface. Then, during sunlit hours it would need an extra 450W/m^2 to raise the temperature from about 732K to 737K. On Earth, if isothermal conditions were supposedly existing without water vapor and other greenhouse gases, then the sensitivity to water vapor would be about 10 degrees per 1% atmospheric content. But there is no evidence that a region with 1% above it is 30 degrees colder than another region at similar altitude and latitude with 4% above it. The effective surface layer of Earth’s oceans may be considered to be only 1cm thick, or even if 10cm thick it is still very transparent to insolation. But a black or grey body does not transmit radiation, and the surface layer absorbs less than 1% of that incident solar radiation. So the S-B calculations are totally incorrect and planetary surface temperatures cannot be calculated using such.
This is where the error crept in in 1985 …
“Coombes and Laue concluded that answer (1) is the correct one and answer (2) is wrong. They reached this conclusion after finding that statement (2a) is wrong, i.e., the average kinetic energy of all molecules does not decrease with the height even though the kinetic energy of each individual molecule does decrease with height.
These authors give at first a qualitative explanation of this fact by noting that since both the kinetic energy of the molecules and the number density of molecules decrease with height, the average molecular kinetic energy does not necessarily decrease with height.”
This is absurd. They had the mean kinetic energy decreasing in each molecule, but then they divided again by the number. Try calculating a mean by dividing twice by the number of elements. A glaring error. The Loschmidt effect has NOT been debunked by this nonsense.
Velasco, S., Román, F.L., White, J.A. (1996). On a paradox concerning the temperature distribution of an ideal gas in a gravitational field, Eur. J. Phys., 17: 43–44.
00
Guys, the world is warming up. You can cherry-pick your statistics all you like, but all that that shows is that there is variation from place to place. If any organisation has a good view of the world as a whole, it is NASA. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html
01
Yes, the world is warming Darren. It started about 300 years ago and the peak rate of warming has not changed in 130 years despite all that CO2.
Those who cherry pick are the ones who avoid the long term trends that matter and focus on mindless noise in “extremes”.
20
In terms of the original article you commented on, I think we do need to avoid looking at extremes and at statistics that look a bit contrived. They should be explored, but not used as important points in the debate. We need to look at the data that really do average across time and space to avoid giving over-emphasis to small fluctuations. We can argue about how much time or space to average over, I suppose. For example, CO2 may rise one year while average temps go down, so someone might use that as evidence to say they are not coupled; yet if we average across a few years at a time, or decades, the likelihood that they are coupled appears much higher (and that is even apart from the fact that you can do a laboratory experiment on a bell-jar of CO2 to show that it is a greenhouse gas — it has intrinsic physical properties that trap heat, and that is a conclusion completely independent of ‘climate’). I agree that how many days are really hot or really cold is a flaky statistic that depends on where you draw the line, how you choose your criteria, what time frame you consider, and so on. It is much more sensible to look at simple measurements that average across time and geography. For example American skeptics are fond of pointing out that “1934 was the hottest year on record”. But that is only true in the USA, and the rest of the world was not that hot, whereas we can now see that averaged across the globe the 10 warmest years on record (since 1880) are (in descending order) 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2012 — all very recent. There is no interpretation in this, no ideology or conspiracy, it is just measurements. Made by numerous individuals around the world, working for numerous organisations, and in many cases from a time before ‘climate change’ was even considered.
With that in mind, a couple of comments in response:
(1) Umm… reliable data do not go back 300 years (the reason the graph starts at 1880 is only then was there a reliable enough network of global temperature stations to get an idea of global average temperatures). We have ways of inferring values from before then, but they have large-ish uncertainties on them, though even on the scale of those uncertainties the current trend is quite sharp and strong (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png). We can get long-term CO2 measurements that are reliable through air trapped in ice and taken from ice cores, but not actual, globally-averaged temperature measurements as such. These air pockets show that in tens of thousands of years there’s never been such a rapid increase in CO2, which makes sense since when we burn oil and coal we are releasing in a few decades carbon that was naturally sequestered over millions of years. Now, I suppose you can assume that this has no affect on the Earth, but that seems like a pretty extreme assumption. It’s like cutting off a guy’s hand and assuming he’ll still be able to play the piano… Anyway, it’s pretty clear that Human CO2 emission increases the amount of CO2 in the air. Maybe the oceans take up a bit more (and acidify) but the bottom line is, if we pump it out it has to go somewhere. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/CO2_Emissions_vs_Concentration.png
(2) I am not cherry picking. Global average temperature is averaged across the globe and across the year. It is therefore not some ‘biggest number of hot days’ or some other figure plucked out of the morass of data, it is a simple, robust, highly averaged measure. It is the opposite of an outlier, the opposite of cherry picking. Here is another figure that averages over local fluctuations — global ocean heat content: http://www.realclimate.org/images//heat_content2000m.png
So this shows pentadal averages for the heat stored in the ocean, a big slow heat reservoir that is not prone to rapid fluctuation. Notice any trend? Now, the time scale is short, but the trend is clear and that leads to my last point:
(3) The world is warming up, as you agree. It may have done so before. Whether it is warming up ‘naturally’ or whether we are forcing it through the changes we have made to the atmosphere, it is happening and we have to ask ourselves: Is our way of life going to be able to persist of it keeps warming? Even if the warming is natural, and has precedent, who is to say it will stop before it becomes a problem for us? Species have been wiped out before by climatic variations. If a flood was going to hit my house I would try to divert it with sandbags, I’m not going to say “Oh, well, it’s natural, it’s happened before, so I’ll just let it wash my house away.” Whether as a result of human activity or not, the globe is warming and if it keeps up it is going to have major impacts on food production, biodiversity and quality of life. I think our actions have something to do with it. Clearly many readers here do not think so, they would rather believe in some conspiracy of scientists. I find that odd, but so be it. Regardless, it would be nice if we could at least agree on the measurements we have — measurements, not theories or models or anything that involves ideology or detailed interpretation, just numbers on a graph — and then agree that regardless of why it is happening, it is happening and we might just want to do something about it if we value our energy-hungry lifestyle.
00
Yes, James Hansen noticed the long term cyclic variations, and realised that he could get increased research funding by mounting a project to understand why the rate of temperature change was, what it was.
Other scientists bought into that idea, for getting increases in funding, by thinking of other aspects that could be better explained if some research was done.
And so it went on.
The whole thing eventually turned into a bubble, that had become too big to be shut down without a lot of political fallout.
In the meantime, and throughout this whole period, the temperature has been increasing at exactly the same rate, as it has done numerous times in the prehistoric past.
NASA understand this, but who in that organisation will be the martyr who blows the whistle on all of their colleagues? That would be a career limiting move, beyond conception.
00