Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Holyrood herd's darkest hour as zealots prevail

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 26 June 2009
By Bill Jamieson
WAS the climate change legislation the Scottish Parliament's finest hour? Climate change minister Stewart Stevenson (yes, that's his title) declared "Scotland can be proud of this bill… We are leading global action and expect others to follow our lead…"
What vainglorious twaddle. This was the parliament's darkest hour, a chilling example of delusional herd hysteria at its worst. A debate proceeded on no critical scrutiny of the evidence. Arbitrary targets were set after a mindless bidding process th...



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 25 June 2009 11:30 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Bill Jamieson
 
1

,

26/06/2009 00:36:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

walter,

26/06/2009 01:15:49

Will human activity impact on the change in climate or will the change in climate impact on human activity? History suggest the latter no matter what we are told.
3

Paul Morris,

Edinburgh 26/06/2009 02:03:03
It is a pity that Bill Jamieson appears unwilling or unable to accurately review the science of climate change.

The Scottish Climate Bill, whilst not as strong as it could have been, is a step in the right direction which Scotland can take pride in. It highlights to the world that a developed nation can set targets that are consistent with scientific advice.

The challenge now is ensure that we meet the targets and move towards a sustainable future.
4

steve 1511,

aberdeen 26/06/2009 06:18:05
we must heat up the world,it will bring cheaper fuel bills,you wont need to go to a warm country for your holidays,ice cream and lolly firms will prosper,food will be cheaper ,the benefots of a warm world are massive
5

Unimpressed one,

26/06/2009 08:07:52
Bill Jamieson won't be promoted to editor anytime soon then. But about time someone on the Scotsman's staff spoke some sense.
6

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 26/06/2009 08:46:29
Well said Bill Jamieson, a darkest hour that is going to cost us dearly.
7

mr broon,

Edinburgh 26/06/2009 08:49:21
The author normally makes interesting points but this is is just petty and spiteful twaddle.
8

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 09:18:34
In Australia a Senator who was not being whipped into the lobby either pro or anti, who has an engineering background and so could understand the science decided to review the evidence before making their decision about what appears to be the casting vote on the issue in Australia.

"Senator Steve Fielding met with Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and asked three questions about the relationship between supposedly dangerous levels of global warming and carbon dioxide emissions that are the product of human activity.

... In an opinion piece in the Australian today they describe how they found Minister Wong’s advisers “unable, indeed in some part unwilling, to answer the questions”."

When the global warmers are asked to put up the evidence or shut up, they protest but eventually shut up because there is no evidence except the global temperature record, it went up up up until 1998, but this century it has been going down at a rate of -1.2C/century.

Or as the actress said to the global warmer:

"Pity - it looked so promising!"
9

Climate change is real,

26/06/2009 09:27:34
All of Bill Jamieson's assertions in the full article are easily disproved.

A 42% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020 is the minimum reduction the science tells us industrialised countries must make. I'm not going to look up detailed figures for deniers, but I'll point people to http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/campaigns/bigaskscotland/

The other assertions are easily countered by referring to Grist Mill.

http://www.grist.org/article/they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s/

http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-is-nothing-new/

http://www.grist.org/article/its-the-sun-stupid/


10

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 09:30:24
Apparently Steve Fielding's fame has "exceded the bandwidth" on his website, which just goes to show he is not the shrewdest politician on the block - which is probably why he's willing to go his own direction.

Here is a link to a news article on the subject: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/fielding-frozen-in-climate-disbelief-20090625-cx2f.html
11

seanie,

26/06/2009 09:34:01
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

The HADCRU anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.296
1999-2003: + 0.382
2004-2008: + 0.416

So the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.
12

seanie,

26/06/2009 09:34:12
The GISS anomalies;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.38
1999-2003: + 0.45
2004-2008: + 0.53

Again the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.
13

seanie,

26/06/2009 09:34:21
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv

The last decade of the 20th century averaged 0.268°C above the 61-90 baseline.

So far this century is averaging at 0.428°C above the baseline.

It a very safe bet that the first decade of the 21st century will end up the warmest since records began.
14

seanie,

26/06/2009 09:34:47
The smoothed HADCRU average going back to 1998.

1998 - 0.323
1999 - 0.348
2000 - 0.37
2001 - 0.389
2002 - 0.403
2003 - 0.413
2004 - 0.419
2005 - 0.42
2006 - 0.419
2007 - 0.415
2008 - 0.411

You'll see it has dropped from the highpoint in 2005 but it's higher than the start of the century and the figures towards the end of the series are increasingly provisional. Given the temperature in 2008 was depressed by a strong La Nina, the smoothed anomaly will most likely be revised upwards over the next few years.
15

seanie,

26/06/2009 09:35:50
The scope for natural variability, year to year, is far greater than the underlying warming trend. Variability day to day and month to month is even greater than annual variability, making short term predictions HARDER than longer term ones. So deriving trends across short periods is essentially meaningless; even five year averages aren't necessarily going to show consistent warming. Natural events such as a La Nina or a major volcanic eruption could result in a significant temporary cooling that drives the average down. But even that would not be inconsistent with an underlying warming trend, because such effects are temporary.

The simplest way to filter out the 'noise' of natural variation and identify any trend is to average out temperatures in some way. There are various ways to do it, with varying degrees of complexity, but it's a perfectly straightforward and entirely valid way of interpreting the data that itself doesn't 'promote' any particular result. It just filters out the noise.

So, knowing that, look at the HADCRU and GISS graphs showing 'smoothed' or averaged temperatures.

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

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.pdf

In both cases, is the average temperature (as represented by the smoothed average) higher now than ten years ago?

Yes it is.
16

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 09:36:56
Dear laer si egnahc etamilc,

If global warmers have such good models that irrespective of the fact weather forecasters can't predict a week in advance, they can predict the complexity of the climate with huge accuracy for the next century,

WHY DIDN'T THEY PREDICT THE COOLING THIS CENTURY.

COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING

If the Met Office were so good at precicting global temperatures, why for each of the nine forecasts did they predict warming and get cooling (average warming of 0.04-0.05/year actual result -0.012C/year).

Even by the Met Office own statistics that they publish with the forecasts the probability of this happening was diminishingly small.

In science, when you make a prediction with clear probability boundaries, (1.4-5.8 C for the IPCC and warming instead of cooling for the Met Office) and you FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL .. x9 to predict what actually happens you can only come up with one answer:

THE THEORY IS WRONG!
17

seanie,

26/06/2009 09:37:50
The last five years have been warmer than the five before, which in turn were warmer than the five before that.

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming.
18

Climate change is real,

26/06/2009 09:38:30
Insomnia's assertion that global warming stopped in 1998 is easily rebutted http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

If Insomnia wants to point to individual politicians then I will point to Margaret Thatcher. She was highly sceptical, but she asked to be shown the evidence and that convinced her.

In a thread yesterday a large amount of evidence was put up for climate change by a variety of scientific organisations. The deniers had no counter to this evidence, but today they are back denying as loudly as ever.

Anyone interested in understanding what is happening would do well to read the article at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/groundhog-day-2/ and ponder on it. The following is a short extract.

"However, recently there has been more of a sense that the issues being discussed (in the media or online) have a bit of a groundhog day quality to them. The same nonsense, the same logical fallacies, the same confusions - all seem to be endlessly repeated. The same strawmen are being constructed and demolished as if they were part of a make-work scheme for the building industry attached to the stimulus proposal. Indeed, the enthusiastic recycling of talking points long thought to have been dead and buried has been given a huge boost by the publication of a new book by Ian Plimer who seems to have been collecting them for years. Given the number of simply made-up 'facts' in that tome, one soon realises that the concept of an objective reality against which one should measure claims and judge arguments is not something that is universally shared. This is troubling - and although there is certainly a role for some to point out the incoherence of such arguments (which in that case Tim Lambert and Ian Enting are doing very well), it isn't something that requires much in the way of physical understanding or scientific background. (As an aside this is a good video description of the now-classic Dunning and Kruger papers on h
19

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 09:48:43
The climate always changes, 1998 was a high year, since then we've had a cooling period.

The key indicator is not what happened from 1998 which was an unusual year and is clearly cooking the books, but what happend from 2001.

2001 was at the beginning of a period of a few years fo stability so it does not give a false up or downward trend because of the exact start date.

2001 was the year the IPCC predicted warming of 1.4-5.8 so it is the year from which we will test the validity of that prediction.

And it is the year since when the trend has been -1.2C/century COOLING.

That is the simple fact, and if it were warming it would be warming this century, but it is not warming this century it is COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING.

... and none of the global warmers predicted that cooling!
20

seanie,

26/06/2009 09:50:54
Global Land+Ocean Surface Temperature Anomaly (C)

(Base: 1951-1980)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean


1998 .57 .38
1999 .33 .42
2000 .33 .45
2001 .48 .45
2002 .56 .48
2003 .55 .54
2004 .48 .55
2005 .62 .55
2006 .55 .53
2007 .57 *
2008 .44 *
21

seanie,

26/06/2009 09:52:07
Oh look.

2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007 were all warmer than 2001.

That's a funny sort of cooling trend.
22

seanie,

26/06/2009 09:52:54
Remember...

The last five years have been warmer than the five before, which in turn were warmer than the five before that.

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming.
23

Climate change is real,

26/06/2009 09:54:07
An expansion on my previous posting. Bill Jamieson relies on a book. A short rebuttal of it is.

"Ian Plimer’s book, Heaven + Earth—GlobalWarming: The Missing Science, claims to demolish the theory of human-induced global warming due to the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

"Overall:
"• it has numerous internal inconsistencies;
"• in spite of the extensive referencing, key data are unattributed and the content of references is often mis-quoted.

"Most importantly, Ian Plimer fails to establish his claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural variations."

http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

More rebuttals at http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/plimer/index.php?page=1



24

seanie,

26/06/2009 09:55:39
The HADCRU data

Global Temperature (Climatic Research Unit)

Year, Anomaly, Smoothed

2001, 0.409, 0.389
2002, 0.464, 0.403
2003, 0.473, 0.413
2004, 0.447, 0.419
2005, 0.482, 0.420
2006, 0.422, 0.419
2007, 0.405, 0.415
2008, 0.325, 0.411

Oh look.

2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 were all warmer than 2001.

That's a funny sort of cooling trend.
25

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 09:55:49
Seanie, you can deny your global warming phalic symbol is not loosing its ardour all you like, but if I were you I'd be looking for a source of viagra! Because its going down -1.2C/century according to official Met Office data.
26

seanie,

26/06/2009 09:58:36
I've just posted the official MET data. And the smoothed average is higher now than 2001.

It's dipped slightly since 2005 but the later figures are likely to be revised upwards.
27

Climate change is real,

26/06/2009 09:59:19
"COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING COOLING"

No matter how loudly or long an untruth is proclaimed, it remains an untruth.

There is an excellent video at http://www.youtube.com/v/XyOHJa5Vj5Y which explains which groups of people over-estimate their skills in a particular field.

28

seanie,

26/06/2009 10:00:04
If you want to educate yourself a bit about the dangers of calculating trends over short periods try the following;

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2008/01/common-climate-misconceptions-has-global-warming-stopped/
29

seanie,

26/06/2009 10:00:13
Or try this;

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/
30

seanie,

26/06/2009 10:00:58
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's physical properties and role as such have been accepted science for over a century; since about 1860.

CO2 levels have risen signifcantly since the onset of industrialisation; from around 280ppm to around 385ppm. There is no scientific dispute on this.

That increase is due to human activity. We know this from the entirely uncontroversial fact that burning fossil fuels creates CO2, and the equally obvious fact that we've been burning a lot of fossil fuels since the onset of industrialisation.

The isotopic signature of CO2 in the atmosphere also confirms this.

That an increase in C02 should generally lead to an increase in temperature is not some wild and extravagant speculation. It's exactly what accepted scientific understanding tells us to expect.

It might be possible that there is some completely unknown and as yet to be discovered mechanism that is responsible for the warming trend. But that seems unlikely since we'd also have discover some hitherto completely unknown reason why the increase in CO2 isn't causing it.

Because basic physics tells us IT SHOULD BE.
31

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 10:01:53
yes Seanie, the trend on your data is -1.2C/century. The average Met Office predicted trend is +4C/century, the IPCC predicted trend was 1.4-5.8C/century.

The chance of the Met Office model being correct is less than 0.2%.

That means there is much more than a 99.8% chance that the Met Office global warming model is wrong.

WRONG.

Look Seanie, even I was impressed with the global warmers phallic symbol up to 1998. It really did look impressive, it was shooting up as if it was a sex stud on viagra.

Then it stopped going up, and on average this century measuring it with a very careful ruler, it certainly is beginning to deflate.
32

seanie,

26/06/2009 10:03:36
I've posted the linls to the data. All you need is a calculator, and maybe someone who knows how to calculate an average. Give it a try.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

The HADCRU anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.296
1999-2003: + 0.382
2004-2008: + 0.416

So the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that
33

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 10:04:58
Seanie, science has a very simple rule to determine whether a theory is correct:

YOU MAKE A PREDICTION - IF THE DATA FITS THEN IT SUPPORTS THE THEORY, IF NOT THE THEORY IS INVALID.

IPCC Predicted 1.4-5.8C trend, this century, the actual trend is -1.2C.

I think you are confusing science with politics, or religion!
34

seanie,

26/06/2009 10:08:11
How about we look at things over a longer timescale?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The GISS anomalies, averaged over decades, going back to the 30s.

1930-1939: - 0.28
1940-1949: + 0.44
1950-1959: - 0.20
1960-1969: - 0.12
1970-1979: + 0.01
1980-1989: + 0.18
1990-1999: + 0.32

And so far this decade?

2000-2008: + 0.46

So, with only a few months left to go, the decade we're currently in is easily going to be the hottest on record.

That's a funny sort of cooling trend you've identified.
35

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 10:10:21
Hadcru anomolies over five years - Seanie, what is the average trend in the Hadcrut3 data this century?

What was the trend in the previous two decades?

UP UP DOWN.

Ever since the climax in 1998 your phallic symbol is deflating - I think the technical term is premature peaking?
36

seanie,

26/06/2009 10:11:35
They predicted a long term trend. Given that the scope of natural year on year variability greatly exceeds that trend, deriving linear trends over short periods is essentially meaningless.

Try the links I suggested. They'll explain this to you in little baby steps.
37

Seoras67,

Edinburgh 26/06/2009 10:25:45
Good article, well written and long overdue.
Can just one of the eco fascists explain why they so despise any article that challenges the Global Warming is caused by Man theory. Why are they so afraid of an open and honest debate?
Only being allowed to hear one point of view is not democratic. If the evidence that global warming is solely caused by Man is so overwhelming then what are the eco fascists afraid of and why do they get so upset whenever their cherished belief is challenged. Less emotion more scientific fact is needed on both sides of this debate.
38

seanie,

26/06/2009 10:32:38
The scientific consensus is overwhelming.

Human induced global warming is a real and pressing danger.
39

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 10:36:23
Seanie: "deriving linear trends over short periods is essentially meaningless."

There we can both agree, the climate naturally varies over periods of decades, centuries even millenia.

For people to pick up on a couple of decades of warming at a rate that has been seen several times before and then to ignore the fact that we've entered a century of cooling is beyond belief.

What is the chance of getting three decades of warming (1970s,80s,90s) in a standard 1/f noise (aka pink noise) sequence of 15 decades (1850-2000)? Its precisely what any statitician would expect.

And for these quacks to suggest that tossing a coin heads three times in a row after 12 other flips is anything anyone should worry about ... particularly when the next flip is coming down cooling.

It went up up up, reached a climax in 1998, and now it is going down, and whilst the viagra of fiddled statistics can fool some people for a few years, everyone else knows the truth.
40

El Franko,

26/06/2009 10:43:53
seanie's fallacy in his own words:
'That an increase in C02 should generally lead to an increase in temperature is not some wild and extravagant speculation. It's exactly what accepted scientific understanding tells us to expect.

No it does not. The climate system is far too complex for such a simple-minded notion. The system is overwhelmingly regulated by the behaviour of water in all its phases, and by the massive convection and translation systems originating in the tropics. Both theory and observation and historical reconstructions argue for CO2 being a negligible participant in this grand drama.

I can only read the first two paragraphs of the article by Mr Jamieson, but by golly they are good. I nearly fell off my barstool to see such writing in The Scotsman. More and more of this please!
41

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/06/2009 10:44:56
Isonomia: you continue to write nonsense.

Trying to extrapolate a few years data (the temperature trend from 2100 to present) to the end of the century and to compare that with projections for temperature changes to that time is idiotic.

I ask you a question: have you read the articles from Tamino to which you have been directed many times?

Here they are again:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/dont-get-fooled-again/

Have you read them? Yes or no?

If yes, have you understood them? Yes or no?

If yes, how can you continue with the idiotic misinformation that you continue to produce? This includes your letter in today's Scotsman (Isonomia is Mike Haseler of Lenzie)
42

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 10:50:54
El Franko, the rediculous thing is that anyone believes this noddy science of CO2 as a warming gas.

1. CO2 has a higher specific heat capacity than normal air.
2. Those fluffy things we see on hot days (aka clouds) are caused by rising hot air (and general high and low pressure are also circulating air driven by heating at the surface)

3. Hot air doesn't rise unless cold air descends (that's why we get air going into low pressure and out of high pressure)

4. So its obvious that solar heat at the surface is being taken up into the high atmosphre where the heat is being lost into space (there's nowhere else for it to go)

5. CO2 has a higher emissivity (the flip side of blocking IR), so it ACCELERATES LOSS OF HEAT.

6. In fact the IR blocking function of CO2, causes heat to be localised nearer the surface contrentrating heat and so driving the cooling cycle more rapidly.

that's three ways that CO2 is a COOLING GAS. OK, it's the name noddy handwaving argument as CO2 being a warming gas, but it is arguably more valid because there are three separate ways it can cool, but only one way it heats, so statistically (?!?) its more likely to be a cooling gas.

But when has any so called cliamate "scientist" admited the cooling effect of CO2 on the climate?
43

seanie,

26/06/2009 10:51:20
So you agree that deriving linear trends over short periods is essentially meaningless.

But still insist on deriving a linear trend over a short period.

Mmmmm.........
44

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 10:52:00
Sorry should have said higher specific heat capacity, means that more energy can be carried per unit of heating, so that the CO2 makes the air a better coolant of the surface due to convective air currents.
45

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 10:55:39
Seanie "So you agree that deriving linear trends over short periods is essentially meaningless." ... If you actually understood the appropriate noise model for long term systems like the atmosphere, then you would understand that it is quite absurd to look at a small short term trend like the 1970s-2000 warming and say anything other than: "its meaningless".

But I have to fight fire with fire. You spurt meaningless statistics, so I just spurt equally invalid statistics back. Because at the end of the day your whole argument is that it is warming, and it just happens that the current natural climatic variation proves you wrong because it is COOLING!
46

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:01:37
So 1979-2000 is to short a time to derive a meanigful trend.

Yet you keep insisting the trend this century is down.

And you can't spot any problem with this?

ROFLMAO
47

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/06/2009 11:09:13
isonomia

if CO2 is a net cooling gas, as you delude yourself, why is there a positive correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature, both in recent times, see:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1908/to:2008/scale:1000/offset:10/plot/esrl-co2/from:1908/to:2008/scale:10/offset:-3000

and

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html

and in paleoclimatic data, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
48

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 11:14:08
Seanie: "Yet you keep insisting the trend this century is down."

It's you Seanie who are using the argument that "it is warming". All I'm saying is "the trend this century is cooling".

You are the one trying to give a meaning to a meaningless period of warming, I'm just pointing out that your meaningless period of warming has stopped.
49

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 11:17:43
Slioch, as you well know the correlation between CO2 and warming is that CO2 outgasses during natural periods of climatic variation so that the CO2 increases as a result of warming.

Why do you think, we then go into a cooling period - it is because the time delayed CO2 brings in a cooling effect! If it didn't then there would have been run away global warming many many times before, and the very fact we are sitting here discussing this subject just proves that Brother earth has always been a farting, burping old man, and mankind is just a bit of sprouts in his digestive tract.
50

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:18:51
You're insisting it's stopped by deriving a trend over a short period, whilst simultaneously saying deriving trends over short terms is meaningless.

By your own admission what you're saying is nonsense.
51

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:20:21
What do the scientists say?
52

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:20:29
The American Physical Society;

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
53

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:20:41
The Royal Society;

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

"Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable."
54

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:20:51
A Joint Science Academies’ statement;

http://www.icsu-africa.org/Resource_centre/Globalresponseclimatechange.pdf

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
55

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:21:00
The American Association for the Advancement of Science;

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
56

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:21:08
A statement from The Royal Meteorological Society;

http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332

"The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is unequivocal in its conclusion that climate change is happening and that humans are contributing significantly to these changes. The evidence, from not just one source but a number of different measurements, is now far greater and the tools we have to model climate change contain much more of our scientific knowledge within them. The world’s best climate scientists are telling us its time to do something about it."
57

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:21:19
The Geological Society;

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/null/lang/en/page1022.html

"We therefore add our voices to those urging more serious attention, and action, from national and international bodies. The central problem is one of the massive transfer of carbon from beneath the ground into the atmosphere, caused by humanity’s enormous demands for energy, and current dependence on fossil fuels to supply by far the greatest part of this energy."

and...

"We urge serious, and immediate, consideration of these issues. The dangers posed by climate change are no longer merely possible and long-term. They are probable, imminent, and global in scope."
58

El Franko,

26/06/2009 11:23:52
#52 to #57, gallery of shame.
59

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 11:25:34
Science is not run by votes, it is run by evidence. The evidence is that it is cooling this century by -1.2C/century.

The evidence is that the new-age hippies of the IPCC despite all the money they spent on research, singularly failed to predict the current cooling, and no matter how much you protest, the rule of science is that if you can't predict the data

YOU ARE WRONG!
60

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:25:41
The most eminent international and national scientific institutions in the world.

All part of a conspiracy eh?

Tinfoil millinery not gone out of fashion then?
61

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:29:53
Remember...

The last five years have been warmer than the five before, which in turn were warmer than the five before that.

That's a funny sort of cooling.
62

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 11:34:12
Seanie: "The most eminent international and national scientific institutions in the world.

All part of a conspiracy eh?"

And how many people believe that some more jew after being butchered by the Romans came to life again?

And many of them "scientists"

But does that prove medical science wrong?

Seanie, science is not an opinion poll, it is based on making testable predictions. The IPCC predicted 1.4-5.8C rise this century, the Met Office predicted on average warming each year each and every year this century.

Both the IPCC and the Met Office predictions have singularly failed to predict the current cooling.

How can anyone except a religious nutter believe them?
63

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 11:36:08
PS. Christians also predicted that "Christ would rise before those present tasted death" - that makes the second coming about 1900 years late!
64

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:37:36
"the Met Office predicted on average warming each year each and every year this century"

Each year warmer than the last?

Don't be ridiculous.

65

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 11:42:16
Seanie: "The last five years have been warmer than the five before, which in turn were warmer than the five before that."

The way you abuse statistics shows you really are quite a dishonest person.

2001 is a statically neutral year to take as a start and it happens to be the first year of this century.

The statement "it is cooling this century" is factually true. It also accurately tells people the current situation which was a rise from around 1970 followed by a peak and then a clear downward trend in the trend.

When are you going to stop mucking about with figures and just accept that the theory of global warming will be tested by the temperature trend this century and so far that has very very clearly not supported the theory of manmade global warming.
66

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:49:08
It's no abuse.

Try it yourself. I've posted the links to the data.

Taking five year averages is a bit rough and ready but it's a reasonable and perfectly neutral way of smoothin out the noise of antural interannual variability.

Linear trends over short periods on the other hand is statisticvally invalid. That vey noise, far from being filtered out, can totally skew any resulting trend. Any slight change in start and end points can radically alter the result, which itself demonstrates why it's not valid as a method.
67

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:50:01
And you've already admitted your statistics are invalid.

When in a hole, stop digging.
68

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 11:51:07
""the Met Office predicted on average warming each year each and every year this century"

Each year warmer than the last?

Don't be ridiculous."

No, they havepredicted global temperature every each and every year. Each and every year the predicted temperature was above the 50% percentile, and in 3/4 of the 8 years where they published the data, it was above the 75% confidence interval.

To put that another way, the Met Offic said "we are more than 75% confident it will be above a figure" and the temperature came in below this figure 6 out of 8 years. In the other three years they said: "we believe it will be above this figure" and it came in below.

Statistically, the probability of getting the forecast so wrong is the same as tossing a coin heads nine times in a row - that is extremely unlikely (1 in 512 or <0.2%).

For any scientist, such a disasterous run of predictions would be the political equivalent of being caught in bed with the Russian ambassador.
69

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:51:40
For example;

What's the trend for 2001 to 2008 based on HadCRUT3 unadjusted global mean?

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2008/trend

It's going down.

But what's the trend for the decade 1999 to 2008 based on HadCRUT3 unadjusted global mean?

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1999/to:2008/trend

Oh look. It's shooting up!

As pointed out, the underlying warming trend is smaller than the scope of natural variability. Fitting trend lines to such short periods is not statistically useful, as demonstrated by the links above. Simply changing the start period from 2001 to 1999 produces a very different result.
70

seanie,

26/06/2009 11:54:30
Or try 2001 to 2007;

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2007/trend

Again the trend is up.

It's only when you include last year, when temperatures were supressed by a La Nina event, that you suddenly get a downwards trend.

Linear trends over such periods are essentially worthless.
71

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 12:04:02
Seanie, so you agree that the trend this century is going up, so I will agree the trend since .... 1999? What a stupid year, why can't you just pick 2000?

As far as I remember, if you pick 2000 as your starting year, then the trend is still upward, but if you pick 1998 it is downward.

The reason I'm sticking to 2001, is:

A) that't the date of the IPCC prediction
B) Its the start of the century
C) I want a start date, where the actual start date has least effect on the actual trend and so most likely represents the real trend rather than noise.

After 2001 there was a period of a few years with no overall upward or downward trend. So, I was very happy to use this date because it would provide a more accurate and therefore quicker discrimination as to whether the trend was warming or cooling.

The fact it was cooling, is what forced me to justify my original position accepting manmade global warming, and like many other people, when I discovered that the temperature data no longer supported the global warmers assertions and I went to look for the evidence that they said existed to support the theory of manmade global warming

THERE WAS NONE.

And to be blunt ... I DON'T LIKE BEING SUCKERED, AND I PARTICULARLY DON'T LIKE THE LOW LIFE THAT MADE ME SPREAD THEIR NASTY LIES ABOUT THE "EVIDENCE" BACKING MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING.
72

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/06/2009 12:04:32
#49 Isonomia

So you also think that glacial periods were caused by increasing CO2!

Why then did the latest series of glaciations start some 30 odd million years ago as CO2 levels were dropping? Why were the coolest parts of subsequent glaciations associated with the lowest levels of CO2 ever experienced on Earth? How did "Snowball Earth" end?

It is, of course, correct that as the Earth warms, for whatever reason, net amounts of CO2 are released to the atmosphere from oceans and wetlands etc. so atmospheric CO2 increases. But whilst one might delude oneself into believing that was ALL that was happening during the Vostok curve, such a belief then makes it impossible to explain events during the last century.

How is it, if CO2 causes cooling, that in this last century we have reached the highest levels of CO2 experienced on Earth for millions of years (due, indubitably to human emissions) we have also reached abnormally high temperatures. How do you explain the correlation shown by Barton Paul Levenson?

If the "cooling effect" of CO2 is due to convection because of CO2's greater thermal capacity, have you calculated what the proportional increase in thermal capacity of air is? Remember, denialists continually complain that the CO2 concentration is too small to have an effect by IR absorption. But at least that effect is compared to N2, O2 and argon having ZERO IR absorption. That is, the concentration of ALL greenhouse gases (water, CO2, CH4 N2O etc are ALL small, thus a change in CO2 concentration is relatively significant).

In contrast ALL gases that make up the air have significant thermal capacities, so a tiny increase in CO2, which has only has a slightly higher thermal capacity than the other gases, will have a relatively minute impact.

But I'm sure you can tell us just what the relative impact is ... after all, your whole (ridiculous) hypothesis depends on it.

And ... about Tamino - have you read the articles we have directed you to? Do
73

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/06/2009 12:05:17
contd.


And ... about Tamino - have you read the articles we have directed you to? Do you yet understand the idiocy of your cooling since 2001 mantra?

Incidentally, neither the MET Office nor the IPCC claim to be able to predict El Nino and La Nina events: they are part of the noise that causes annual variations in temperature and identify your protestations about "IPCC and the Met Office predictions have singularly failed" as scientifically illiterate nonsense.
74

seanie,

26/06/2009 12:06:31
But you've already admitted your statistics are invalid.

I'm just explaing to you why.
75

seanie,

26/06/2009 12:09:56
"I want a start date, where the actual start date has least effect on the actual trend and so most likely represents the real trend rather than noise."

This is just inept.

When you're calculating a linear trend, over such short periods, the start date can't help but effect the trend. Whatever one you choose it makes a difference.

That's why it's not a statistically valid measure over such short periods. The start and end point has too great an influence on any trend. The results are dominated by noise.

Which is why averageing in some way is better. It smooths out that noise.
76

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 12:24:46
Slioch, I'm not seriously proposing CO2 as a cooling gas ... that's the same noddy science that tells everyone its a warming gas. But I have to fight fire with fire and if noddy science can be used to redicule noddy science that CO2 "must be a warming gas", then I'll use it, but in reality we both know the globe is far more complex than that.

The point I'm trying to make is that in a complex system what appears obvious using Noddy science, often turns out to be wrong ... and to be quite blunt the climate "scientists" I've met clearly didn't get their by their brains. It's like the double glazing gap. Increasing it should increase the insulation, but when the gap gets too big, the convective currents start and the insulation DROPS! CO2 will have a warming effect, it can also operate in several ways to have a cooling effect.

The basis of my case is that the temperature signal is indistinquishable from the kind of noise you expect to dominate in long term systems (called 1/f noise).

Have a look at this graph:

http://www.tursiops.cc/fm/pink.gif

and tell me that the frist third does not bear a striking resemblance to the global temperature signal from 1850-present.

(See: http://www.tursiops.cc/fm/ for text with it).

Now, having decided that the temperature signal can be explained entirely as natural noise (and I add to that historical data from proxies - but not tree-rings which are problematic) - the question I'm left with is "can I discriminate any external forcing in the temperature signal".

The answer with the current cooling is very clearly no.

Up to 1998, there was a clear, steady and unvarying upward trend which I accept should have made everyone worried, because it could well have carried on.

However, each year of cooling since 2001 has added to the probability that the three decades up to 1998 were just a statistical aberration.
77

seanie,

26/06/2009 12:29:48
Each year of cooling since 2001?

Get a grip.

According to the Hadcru data 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 were all warmer than 2001.

According to the GISS data 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007 were all warmer than 2001.

78

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/06/2009 12:32:47
#76 Isonomia "Slioch, I'm not seriously proposing CO2 as a cooling gas"

Then stop wasting my time.
79

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/06/2009 12:35:47
Isonomia

Have you read Tamino's articles, referred to above.

Yes or no?
80

seanie,

26/06/2009 12:39:09
According to the GISS data set the hottest year on record, exceeding 1998, is 2005.

According to the HADCRU data set the second hottest year on record, behind 1998, is 2005.

How does 2005 fit in with your "each year of cooling since 2001"?
81

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 12:40:55
Seanie, "Each year of cooling since 2001? Get a grip."

Seanie, I wasn't talking to you - Slioch understands that I meant "each year whereby the average trend this century is cooling adds to the probability that it is just a statistical aberration" without me having to spell it out.

The much more funny bit in my post was being all pompous about "their brains" and mispelling "there" as "their"!
82

El Franko,

26/06/2009 12:42:40
How many angels on a pinhead? We have seen periods of cooling and of warming in the 20th century and will no doubt see periods of warming and cooling in the 21st. The temperature variations are very modest, as are the rates of change. Nothing unusual at all, given our 'recent' experience of the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Also, no convincing correlation with CO2 levels - no surprise there, since it is clear that CO2 is of negligible importance as a driver of climate.
83

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 12:44:20
Slioch, "Tamino's article have I read" - No, but I will. I couldn't obviously see the link, could you post it again - I've got to go out now and I'd like to read it.

84

seanie,

26/06/2009 12:49:43
"each year whereby the average trend this century is cooling"

But that's nonsense. Linear trends over such short periods aren't statistically valid.

But if you insist on using them, every period since 2001 shows a warming trend until you get to last year.

2001-2002: warming trend
2001-2003: warming trend
2001-2004: warming trend
2001-2005: warming trend
2001-2006: warming trend
2001-2007: warming trend

It's only when you include 2008, when there was a strong La Nina, that you get a downwards trend.

Your own preferred, if statistically inept, measure doesn't support your statement.
85

Unimpressed one,

26/06/2009 12:56:34
Who posted the comment which led to the 'tipping point' whereby slioch and seanie were spurned into a 'cut and paste' frenzy?

The more counter-balances and accurate reporting we get on the stupidy of the warmists case, the sooner the public will realise they are being lied to yet again by the greens and their cohorts.
86

El Franko,

26/06/2009 12:58:25
Here's a good recent piece of journalism:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

Extract:
'The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.'
87

seanie,

26/06/2009 13:03:22
Remember...

The last five years have been warmer than the five before, which in turn were warmer than the five before that.

That's a funny sort of flatlining.
88

Unimpressed one,

26/06/2009 13:07:52
Good stuff El Franko, but nothing will change an eco-fundametalist's attitude - they NEED to believe.

Some years ago after looking into the available facts,I made up my mind that the whole thing was a scam. I had no particular axe to grind either way, and had the evidence been there, I would be backing the warmists today.
89

seanie,

26/06/2009 13:11:45
Get yourself a calculator and go through the data.

It's not tricky.

Average temperatures have increased over the last ten years.
90

Geomac 1,

Scotland 26/06/2009 13:31:49
Here we go again - Seanie, you're hogging this blog with your tiresomely repeated biased posts.
Bill jamieson is not unique in his views - many others, like myself, are of the same view. Prof Plimer's book is a must read for all - it's a brilliant antidote to Gore's garbage. Plimer at least takes history and science into account rather than try to intill the fear of God based on the highly questionable nonsense spouted by zealots like Hansen.
Maybe seanie you can explain why all the IPCC models have an inbuilt assumption in the computer coding which assumes that global temperature increases with atmospheric CO2? Neither of the models take into account major climate influencing features like El Nino and La Nino.
As Jamieson points out, Greenland was inhabited a few centuries ago when there was no anthropogenic influences - explain that please?
Why do the IPCC models largely ignore the influence of the sun on global temperatures? Surely, even you do not deny the influence of the sun on earth's temperature.
Many of seanie's citings are produced by the environmental zealots - WWF, Greenpeace, FoE etc, not to mention the raft of publications emanating from so called scientists who's livlihood is dependent on justifying the anthropogenic GW/CC theory.
91

Geomac 1,

Scotland 26/06/2009 13:37:45
Oops I forgot to mention seanie's much revered HADCRU data - it is well known that this data is highly suspect due to the measuement method adopted (land based) - the data is alleged to be highly influenced by ever larger areas of urban development (bricks, tarmac, housing, street lighting etc)
Reference site
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/
92

seanie,

26/06/2009 13:43:43
The surface records correlate very well with the sattelite records.

Are satellites being parked too close to tarmac?
93

seanie,

26/06/2009 13:45:27
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org…ature-records/

“Four different groups produce temperature records that attempt to compile a single global mean surface temperature: NASA’s GISStemp, the Hadley Center’s HadCRU, Remote Sensing Systems’ RSS,and the University of Alabama, Huntsville’s UAH.”

“Despite differences in calculation criteria and a host of technical problems that have plagued the satellite-based records in the past, all four temperature records now show a remarkable degree of agreement. No single temperature record exhibits a significant or consistent warming bias relative to the others.”

“…all four temperature series align remarkably well when normalized on the same baseline period. GISS and HadCRU both show a warming trend of 0.16 degrees C per decade from 1979 to February 2008. RSS shows a warming trend of 0.18 per decade over the same period, while UAH shows a warming trend of 0.14.”
94

seanie,

26/06/2009 13:45:36
A graph with the records normalised on the same baseline;

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/4way.jpg
95

seanie,

26/06/2009 13:45:44
The four series displayed as twelve month moving averages;

http://cce.890m.com/temp-compare.jpg

Pretty good correlation.
96

seanie,

26/06/2009 13:56:00
#91

You should read the link you've offered.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/

It's a rather entertaining demolition of one of the posterboys of denialist blogging.
97

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 14:10:35
Unimpressed one: "Who posted the comment which led to the 'tipping point' whereby slioch and seanie were spurned into a 'cut and paste' frenzy?"

When you've got a phallic symbol which was been going up, up, up and then it premature climaxes in 1998 and starts going down, some people will desparately post every link under the sun to hide their embarrassment!

And the more links - the more they've got to hide!
98

seanie,

26/06/2009 14:17:47
Your denial of arithmetic is actually quite entertaining.

Remember...

The last five years have been warmer than the five before, which in turn were warmer than the five before that.

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming.
99

Geomac 1,

Scotland 26/06/2009 14:21:58
Oops again - wrong reference site #96 - should be
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=earth+temperature+anomalies
100

seanie,

26/06/2009 14:22:53
The first reference is better.
101

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 14:35:22
Geomac: "Oops I forgot to mention seanie's much revered HADCRU data - it is well known that this data is highly suspect due to the measuement method adopted"

Yes, that's why it overstated the upward swing and became the symbolic phallus of the global warmers. But what you win on the upswing, you loose on the down swing, and so because it's just a statistical fluke it showed such a pronounced upswing, the probability it will be one of the first to show the downswing when it comes.
102

seanie,

26/06/2009 14:38:10
And the satellites?

The ones that correlate well with the surface records.

I take it you're just ignoring that.
103

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 14:51:33
Seanie: "Your denial of arithmetic is actually quite entertaining." Seanie, insist all you like that your symbolic phallus is still going up!

The fact is that it went up, it reached a climax in 1998, it drooped in 1999, it then looked like it had some life left in it in 2000, in 2001 it looked like it could go either way, but from around 2005 the trend is very clearly toward the floor.

The more you protest that your phallus is going up the more rediculous the droop looks!
104

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/06/2009 14:57:32
Isonomia, (Mike Haseler of Lenzie)

Have you read Tamino's articles yet?

If you read and understand them, you might realise the nonsense you write and cease continually demonstrating your statistical incompetence.
105

Geomac 1,

Scotland 26/06/2009 15:05:13
#100 seanie - you're biased!!!!
#101 - you could be right, isonomia
#86 el franko - excellent site
seanie
I'm still waiting for your response to the following questions?
1. Why do all the IPCC models have an inbuilt assumption in the computer coding which assumes that global temperature increases with atmospheric CO2? 2. Why do these models not take into account major climate influencing features like El Nino and La Nino?
3. Why was Greenland able to be inhabited a few centuries ago when there was no anthropogenic influences?
4. Why do the IPCC models largely ignore the influence of the sun on global temperatures?
106

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 15:06:52
Slioch - aka Prince Charles, (sorry that's no funny - being likened to someone who talks to plants)

But seriously, no, I asked back the way for a link (could spot the previous one from the dross) and I don't think you posted it again.
107

n/,

Perth 26/06/2009 15:14:22
Would not want anyone to have missed the following which appeared on the BBC News Channel Wed evening 24th June !

''SNP ministers acknowledge an 80% cut in emissions in itself would make no difference on a global scale.''??????

'We are leading global action and expect others to follow'???????????

EXPECT??????
Vanity vanity ....all is vanity!

Go visit China everyone not least places like Shanghai and see how the BIG BOYS do it!

For the record. China more than quadrupled its electricity production between 1990 and 2006 and that output is expected to double again by 2020 as cities eagerly turn on more and more lights............and we are embracing austerity, covering our country in wind turbines and setting meaningless greenhouse gas emission targets?

It's not the planet that is in need of saving it's the nutters who promote MMCC as FACT!

I would remind you of the old computer modeler’s axiom that “All models are wrong … and some models are useful.”

There is a famous aphorism in physics concerning maths models,attributed to several different authors:-''Give me four free parameters and I can fit an elephant. Give me five and I can wag it's tail'' Computer models of climate need not four or five but a dozen or two parameters to which magnitude and sign have to be attributed. If any of these papameters or its sign is incorrect it may wag the tail as an unexpected warming ,cooling , rainfall, wind or what have you.

There is another commoner modelling aphorism but of equal value:-''Garbage in,garbage out''!

Such is there seeming arrogance and ignorance at Holyrood,that there they all are:on the basis of such predictions making a symbolic sacrifice by means of nonsensical targets and formulating a worthless Climate Change(Scotland)Bill in some misgiuded attempt to alter the carbon balance of the world to a degree which from a global perspective is so small, that modern instrumental techniqu
108

n/,

Perth 26/06/2009 15:16:29

The link to the BBC news channel report for those interested is,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8115597.stm
109

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 15:18:16
N' perth "Give me four free parameters and I can fit an elephant."

That is very aptly put! Its a lot easier than trying to explain the orthogonal nature of the parameters in a complex model, and how a linear upward trend would be dominated by the main linear parameter.
110

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/06/2009 15:20:24
#106 Isonomia

I'm not going to spoon feed you Isonomia. If you are really incapable of searching for references made earlier today then that speaks volumes.

Oh, for goodness sake, here they are:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/dont-get-fooled-again/
111

n/,

Perth 26/06/2009 15:20:55
cont.......... in some misguided attempt to alter the carbon balance of the world to a degree which from a global perspective is so small, that modern instrumental techniques will not even be capable of detecting the effect on atmospheric concentration.

On the workings of clouds alone, we still know so little; a fact admitted in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in which meteorologists were reminded that cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty ,and therefore, there was a need for far more research to be done in this area.

With very expensive political decisions,and for many years hence being based on such ill founded predictions ,and with large pieces of the jig saw as yet far from understood,I think we are going to rue the day we ever allowed the advice given by those who have been duped by computer model probabilities to be heeded.

112

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 15:34:34
Slioch, thanks for the links. And to be quite frank that is one of the worst treatments of noise I've seen in a while. It shows absolutely no knowledge of the various types of noise found in physical systems and no conception of the impact that each type of noise has on the form of discrimination that must be used.

I expected to at least see a basic analysis of the noise present in the global warming signal, then an analysis of the frequency components of that noise. Only once you understand the global temperature signal in that way can you hope to be able to set a statistical test to discriminate between natural and induced changes.

I really did think you were better than that!
113

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/06/2009 15:38:06
#Geomac 105

I assume this is the latest idea to come out of the AGW denial camp Buckee was parroting much the same as you pointed out yesterday.

With reference to your questions:

1. "Why do all the IPCC models have an inbuilt assumption in the computer coding which assumes that global temperature increases with atmospheric CO2?"

Because the models are based on physics, and that is what physics tells what should happen. Furthermore, paleoclimatic studies have shown us that that is what has happened in the past. To build a climate model that failed to take account of an important parameter in determining global heat balance would be ridiculous.

2. "Why do these models not take into account major climate influencing features like El Nino and La Nino?"

It would be great if they could, and progress is being made in that direction, but as yet the ability to predict El Nino and La Nina events is not sufficiently advanced to allow that to happen. Similarly, there is not sufficient ability to forecast volcanic eruptions, major ones of which can cause significant short term cooling. The inability to predict such events (irrespective of whether climate models are involved) means that the cooling dip of 2008, which was mainly caused by a La Nina event, was not predicted.

3. "Why was Greenland able to be inhabited a few centuries ago when there was no anthropogenic influences"

Greenland was only "inhabited" (from c.1000AD to c.1400AD) in two sheltered fiords on the west coast of southern Greenland, where the inhabitants scraped a living and eventually died out as the climate deteriorated. Settlements in Greenland at present are more widespread.

4. Why do the IPCC models largely ignore the influence of the sun on global temperatures?

They don't. Full account is taken of the sun (how could they not, for goodness sake!).
114

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/06/2009 15:43:36
#112 Isonomia

You are talking nonsense Isomnia. Tamino explains that the data he produces contains random noise. Analysis of the noise is irrelevant (and if random, pointless).
115

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 15:45:58
Slioch"Furthermore, paleoclimatic studies have shown us that that is what has happened in the past. "

You mean measurements of tree rings by people who cherry pick the tree rings that support their predetermined assumption ignoring the fact that trees adapt at a forest level to climate change by increasing the density of trees in the canopy so that whilst the total forest grows more, the individual tree grows at roughly the same rate given the appearance of a stable climate.

Try using some proper proxies, then check them against known historical events and then come back as say you still believe the climate was stable when people lived in Greenland!
116

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 16:12:40
Slioch, those articles you linked to just get worse and worse "There’s a new hockey stick in town, in Mann et al. 2008".

Everyone knows that you can't compare apples with oranges, because that is what you do if you compare a frequency constrained signal like the global temperature reconstruction with an immediate signal like the actual temperature in the last 150 years.

It's similar to recording the daily average sea level for the last century and then adding today's data onto the end and then being astonished that it appears to suddenly change recently.

It's a fundamental facet of using treering proxy data that they tend to self-adjust so as give the appearence of climatic stability, and that the further back you go, the more likely that the various tree ring proxies fail to correlate giving a further average of climatic variation.

Put simply, take any proxy measurement and compare it with immediate data and you are bound to get a dramatic change as you move from smoothed proxy data to vibrant immedisate data and that is all the so called hockey stick is.
117

BobD,

Backo'Beyond 26/06/2009 16:16:13
Why is nobody mentioning Bill Jamieson's criticism of computer modelling in the supposed scientific forecasts of future weather patterns?

Computer programs are exactly that - prepared programs fed into machines - usually to produce "results" backing up the compiler's theory. (See Al Gore)
118

Geomac 1,

Scotland 26/06/2009 16:16:16
#113 Slioch.
I have to hand it to you, you have at least made a valiant attempt at trying to answer my questions - thank you!
However, do you not see that if you develop a model based on the assumption that the earth's temperature increses with atmospheric CO2, then you will inevitably get an output which will predict that the earth's temperature increases with CO2??? That's scientifically unsound surely!? I am not aware of the physics you refer to which tells us that CO2 increases earth temperature. Now if you were to say that atmospheric pollution will increase earth temperature, you might be closer!
El and La Nino have known major impacts on climate so their omission is a major drawback??
Greenland was inhabited - glad you agree - but what caused the climate to change so much - surely not CO2?
Many of the IPCC models DO NOT take into account solar activity!!
119

Geomac 1,

Front of beyond 26/06/2009 16:17:39
Well said 117 BobD. Don't I know you from somewhere??
120

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 16:27:47
Geomac, the other great change in the climate was the move to colder wetter weather in Scotland that was responsible for the largescale laying down of the peat bogs around Sliochs House.

We know the climate changed dramatically because under many of those peat bogs there are buried landscapes which could only have been laid down in warmer drier periods.

The evidence of dramatic natural climate variation is all around anyone living in the highlands (as is the midges), but for some strange reason Slioch refuses to accept the known historical facts that climate has always varied dramatically and instead Slioch seems incapable of spotting the obvious inconsistency between the tree-ring proxy reconstruction of the past climate (when changes in climate affect the density of trees not the growth of individual trees) and a host of other proxies which are far more consistent with the known facts of climate change shown by archaeological investigations (and the presence of midges)
121

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/06/2009 16:29:29
#115 Isonomia

Actually, I made no mention of tree rings. They give no information on CO2, and as far as I am aware the pre-industrial changes of the past millennium have not been causally linked to CO2 changes. Data on temperature and CO2 (and other climatically linked factors such as methane and dust) are derived from ice core evidence and lake/sea sediments/stalactites etc.provide more.

As for cherry-picking, not only do you cherry pick recent temperature information, when I then direct you to the Tamino articles that show to any competent reader how idiotic that is, you completely ignore that and concentrate on the red herring of analysing the noise.

You cherry pick data to show you what you want to believe and then you cherry pick literature to stop you seeing what you don't want to read.
122

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 16:34:10
Slioch, if analysing the noise is a red herring then it explains why you can't see the wood for the tree-rings!

The global temperature signal is one huge piece of noise. In order to discriminate between the noise and any manmade forcing, you must first understand the nature of that noise so that you don't confuse the normal drift in 1/f noise with the supposed forcing of humans.

The drift we see is simply a facet of the kind of noise, and the type of frequency components that dominate is such physical systems. I appreciate that a propoer treatment of noise is not taught in many Universities doing good physics and I've no doubt it is beyond so called climate scientists, but please do not dismiss something just because you don't understand it.
123

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/06/2009 17:04:13
#118 Geomac

"do you not see that if you develop a model based on the assumption that the earth's temperature increses with atmospheric CO2, then you will inevitably get an output which will predict that the earth's temperature increases with CO2?"

Of course you do. Just as you will get a prediction of cooling if the sun's output decreased by 10%, or if there is a large volcanic eruption. To object to that is fatuous. The crucial point is to determine the effect of the various climatic forcings as accurately as possible and to incorporate those factors into the models. As I said previously, such data relies on physics (infra red absorption. Look it up on Realclimate or somewhere, but it is complicated and difficult to to understand in detail - which part of the problem of getting people to understand), paleoclimatic data, and then VALIDATION of the models to see if they can explain previous changes. Which they can, within limits.

If I study the heat output from a gas ring and the thermal capacity of a pan of water (etc etc.) I could then write a computer model incorporating all that information to tell me how hot the pan would be at various points in the future. Would it then be sensible for someone to object that "since you developed a model based on the assumption that the water in the pan's temperature increases when the gas is lit, then you will inevitably get an output which will predict that the pan's temperature increases when the gas is lit?" Of course it wouldn't. the objection is utterly absurd and is only pushed about by denialists because they know most folk haven't a clue about the climate or models and are easy to fool.

"El and La Nino have known major impacts on climate so their omission is a major drawback??" Yep. I'll say. Actually, IF they continue to behave more or less as previously then, it isn't much of a problem for long-term projections. The real problem would be if they changed their long-term behaviour.

"Greenland was inhabit
124

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/06/2009 17:04:46
Contd.

"Greenland was inhabited - glad you agree - but what caused the climate to change so much - surely not CO2?"

No, CO2 was pretty stable until the industrial revolution got going. Probably mainly slight changes in the sun.

"Many of the IPCC models DO NOT take into account solar activity!!" Where is your evidence for that statement. Climate models that don't take account of the sun don't work! [The point is, that if the sun isn't changing, or is only expected to change by a small and unpredictable amount, THEN those unpredictable or non-existent changes are not incorporated into the models] Maybe that is what you mean. And, of course, if the heat output of the sun unexpectedly declined by 10% then it would get colder.
If I got run over by a bus tomorrow then many of the plans I have made would not come to pass. So what?
No-one claims climate models are perfect, far from it, they are the best we have got.
I have to go.
125

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/06/2009 17:07:11
Isonomia keeps on about 1/f noise.

That gives him away as probably an electonics engineer. He has a grudge against the wind power industry after once working for it; and by association AGW.

I think I'm beginning to see the picture.
126

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/06/2009 17:13:41
The recent upsurge in anti-AGW propaganda unfortunately probably results from the fact that in spite of the departure of the Bush administration, Washington is seething with lobbyists supported by desperate fossil fuel industralists who are afraid that Obama is serious about climate change.

Many of their bogus arguments against AGW are recognisable in the above posts from gullible desciples of the same.
127

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/06/2009 17:13:44
#122 Isonomia

Oh don't be such an ass.

Of course, "In order to discriminate between the noise and any manmade forcing, you must first understand the nature of that noise so that you don't confuse the normal drift in 1/f noise with the supposed forcing of humans." is correct, but that is NOT what Tamino's articles are about, not remotely.

They are concerned with cherry-picking data and deluding yourself that you have found something significant. Which is what you have done, and what you continue to show on your www.lenzie.com site: it is garbage and any amount of distraction activity by bringing up noise analysis is well, frankly, just noises off.

Read Tamino's articles again and take your blinkers off first. But that is my last word on the subject - I have other things to do.
128

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/06/2009 17:15:13
#125 and #126 Fred

Yep. Spot on.
129

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/06/2009 17:16:46
126. disciples
130

El Franko,

26/06/2009 17:17:48
Growing tired of seanie's monotony re temp? Here's a far more intelligent discussion of the 4 main data sets used for global temperature guestimates over the past 12 years.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/global-temperature-revisited/

Unsurprisingly, they find no statistically significant evidence of change since 1997. Our noisy old atmosphere keeps us guessing, but the flattening out of the all-but-imperceptible-to-human-beings warming of earlier years was enough to get the greenie PR machine engaged to change 'global warming' to 'climate change'. Bottom-dwelling scum that they are. Oops I forgot, they are saving the world so they must be good and decent people, right? Wrong, they are making a nuisance of themselves on a scale that beggars belief.
131

El Franko,

26/06/2009 17:20:51
#126, getting desperate Fred? A bit worried about Copengagen? Don't blame you!
132

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/06/2009 17:28:16
'Climate Change Lobbyists Pour into Washington on Behalf of Special Interests
by Robert Kropp

An investigation by the Center for Public Integrity finds an estimated 2,340 lobbyists seeking to influence climate change policy, a 300% increase over five years.'

http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/article2638.html
133

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/06/2009 17:29:58
132. cont:

'Among the lobbyists currently focused on climate change, which include the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the US Climate Action Partnership, is the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), which was formed in 2008 and spent $10.5 million lobbying Capitol Hill in opposition to the Warner-Lieberman climate change bill defeated in the Senate last year. The ACCCE supports clean-coal technology, although opponents of coal-fired power plants argue that such a technology does not even exist.'
134

Geomac 1,

Scotland 26/06/2009 17:34:09
#'s 123/124 Slioch
You put up a good and interesting argument - if I wasn't a scientist myself, I would almost belive you! I respect your tenacity.
Unfortunately I have run out of time for today but undoubtedly we'll meet up again.
One final parting shot - you state "And, of course, if the heat output of the sun unexpectedly declined by 10% then it would get colder." One question? Could it be that the current decrease in solar activity could explain the rather colder winter we experienced 2008/09?
Later mon ami.
135

seanie,

26/06/2009 17:35:30
There's a big problem looming for you denialists.

1998 was exceptionally warm in comparison to the preceeding years due to an exceptionally strong El Nino. However the temperature of 1998 isn't so exceptional in comparison to the last few years. The continuing upwards trend in average temperature means that some years have been close to (and possibly hotter than) 1998 in the absence of a strong El Nino.

A strong La Nina developed in 2007 into 2008, resulting in 2008 being relatively cold in comparison to recent years, although still one of the warmest years on record.

The thing is, at some point within the next few years an El Nino event is pretty likely. And given that we're starting from a higher average even a moderate El Nino could decisively surpass the 1998 temperature.

At which point you'll have to abandon your 'global warming stopped in 1998' mantra and pick this new year as the point global warming stopped.

Up until the next peak.

And so on and so forth.

It'll take an increasingly bizarre denial of reality for you to ignore the ongoing upwards trend in average temperature.
136

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 17:51:59
Seanie, "The continuing upwards trend in average temperature means"

When will you get it into your head that the trend is clearly downward and the downward trend is accelerating. The global temperature in entirely within the normal variation you would expect to see for physical systems as you look at longer and longer periods, because by its nature 1/f tends to increase at low frequencies (longer time periods) so unless a system has no 1/f noise, then sooner or later if you look toward longer and longer the normal noise that simple statistics work with gives way to an entirely different kind of noise which by its nature requires more complex tests to discriminate between external forcings and random fluctuations in the signal.

And the great thing, is that I can say without some corrupt boss looking over my shoulder because unlike most of the global warmers I'm not paid to hold my opinion.

137

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 18:31:21
Geomac: "One question? Could it be that the current decrease in solar activity could explain the rather colder winter we experienced 2008/09?"

Personally, the correlation with the solar activity is almost as unconvincing as is the correlation of CO2 and temperature.

I know some scientists want to pretend they understand how the global climate works, but the truth is they are mostly talking our where the sun don't shine.

Hopefully over the next few decades as the drop in global temperatures means we finally ditch this senseless preoccupation with CO2 (and the new-age hippies that call themselves climate scientists find a career in something more suitable like packing shelves in tesco) then we'll get some sense back into climate science and we will finally make some progress understanding the complex system we all inhabit.

But until then, I really think we should avoid trying to explain the variation in the climate as there's no real basis for any of these assertions whether CO2 or sunspots.
138

Geomac 1,

Scotland 26/06/2009 19:21:29
Here's a bit of light relief for all you hard working bloggers today - till we meet again au revoir!

Five surgeons are discussing who were the best patients to operate on.

The first surgeon says, 'I like to see Accountants on my operating table because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered.'

The second responds, 'Yeah, but you should try Electricians! Everything inside them is colour-coded.'

The third surgeon says, 'No, I really think Librarians are the best; everything inside them is in alphabetical order.'

The fourth surgeon chimes in, 'You know I like Construction Workers. Those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over at the end, and when the job takes longer than you said it would.'

But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed, 'You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There's no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains, and no spine, and there are only two moving parts - the mouth and the ars-ehole - and they are interchangeable'
139

n/,

Perth 26/06/2009 20:25:56

#138. Thank you Geomac1.......finally an indisputable FACT! seanie's repetative ramblings were beginning to weary!
140

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 20:43:39
How can you tell when a politician is lying ... you can see their lips moving!

Three politicians were canvassing in an area and came to a gate with a "beware the dog". The SNP vaulted the gate saying: "there's no dog here" only to jump as quickly back over the gate as a huge rottweiller came around the corner.

The tory opens the gate assertively, saying: "you've got to show them whose master" ... "Sit fido, sit, arghhh.. and with trousers being ripped from his legs he struggles back over the wall".

Then the green asks for a pen and scribbles on his hand, and walks in and as the dog went to bite him, he shoved his hand down its throat, it gagged, spluttered and squeeling ran away."

The SNP candidate and Tory wait whilst the Green gathered another supported and when he came back they asked: "how did you do that", to which the green showed them his hand which read:

"Global warming is the greatest problem facing mankind" ...

We still don't understand they said

"Even a Rottweiller couldn't swallow that!" Said the Green and strode off.
141

seanie,

26/06/2009 21:07:53
Don't forget...

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

The HADCRU anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.296
1999-2003: + 0.382
2004-2008: + 0.416

The most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming.
142

seanie,

26/06/2009 21:08:41
And...

The GISS anomalies;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.38
1999-2003: + 0.45
2004-2008: + 0.53

Again the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming.
143

seanie,

26/06/2009 21:09:37

The last decade of the 20th century averaged 0.268°C above the 61-90 baseline.

So far this century is averaging at 0.428°C above the baseline.

It a very safe bet that the first decade of the 21st century will end up the warmest since records began.

That's a funny kind of cooling.
144

seanie,

26/06/2009 21:10:20
And of course...

The smoothed HADCRU average going back to 1998.

1998 - 0.323
1999 - 0.348
2000 - 0.37
2001 - 0.389
2002 - 0.403
2003 - 0.413
2004 - 0.419
2005 - 0.42
2006 - 0.419
2007 - 0.415
2008 - 0.411

You'll see it has dropped from the highpoint in 2005 but it's higher than the start of the century and the figures towards the end of the series are increasingly provisional. Given the temperature in 2008 was depressed by a strong La Nina, the smoothed anomaly will most likely be revised upwards over the next few years.
145

seanie,

26/06/2009 21:13:43
And let's not forget the longer timescale.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The GISS anomalies, averaged over decades, going back to the 30s.

1930-1939: - 0.28
1940-1949: + 0.44
1950-1959: - 0.20
1960-1969: - 0.12
1970-1979: + 0.01
1980-1989: + 0.18
1990-1999: + 0.32

And so far this decade?

2000-2008: + 0.46

So, with only a few months left to go, the decade we're currently in is easily going to be the hottest on record.

That's a funny sort of cooling trend you've identified.
146

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 21:15:48
Seanie, you are like a broken record of some obnoxious politician telling us "things can only get better" or "there are WMD in Iraq" or "global warming is the worst problem facing mankind".

As you well know this is the last year you'll be able to write your nonsense, because next year your 5 year periods will begin on the statistical neutral year of 2001 (not 2000 and certainly not 1998) and end on the down turn.

NEXT YEAR YOU WILL HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO ADMIT THAT THIS CENTURY = THE LAST TEN YEARS = THE TIME SINCE THE IPCC REPORT.

The world has cooled at a rate of -1.2C/century.
147

seanie,

26/06/2009 21:18:51
And let's not forget Insomnia's admission in #45;

"You spurt meaningless statistics, so I just spurt equally invalid statistics back."

Since even you admit your own statistics are invalid, I think it's best we just assume everything you say is wrong.

Just as a provisional rule of thumb of course.
148

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 26/06/2009 21:24:00
Proof, as if proof were needed that Brown is pulling the strings of statistically challenged GW morons is that he is proposing a £60bn "global" fund to help poorer countries deal with the effects of climate change. Breathtakingly stupid is my first impression after all which country now all mired to greater or lesser extent in recession can afford these kind of funds? Certainly not the UK and yet no doubt we'll find we're the ones putting our hands in our pockets because of Brown's need for a headline this week and his propensity for largesse with other peoples' money for personal and political gain.

Secondly the record on overseas aid is hardly pristine but does inflate the Swiss accounts of foreign despots eager to take this one's advice and spend, spend, spend. On global warming problems. Err, no. Try again, and for evidence see recent Daily Telegraph exposes.

Oh yes, back on topic the 1st 2 paras of this story started our promisingly, but I'm not sure I'd pay some sort of premium for the rest of it. MSPs need to grow up and get burnin' that coal and build a couple of nuclear power stations to supplement the pathetic windmill things.
149

seanie,

26/06/2009 21:26:36
"As you well know this is the last year you'll be able to write your nonsense...."

Since we're not yet at the end of June I couldn't possibly know that. When the final temperature for 2009 is in then we'll see. But as I've said before;

"So deriving trends across short periods is essentially meaningless; even five year averages aren't necessarily going to show consistent warming. Natural events such as a La Nina or a major volcanic eruption could result in a significant temporary cooling that drives the average down. But even that would not be inconsistent with an underlying warming trend, because such effects are temporary."

150

seanie,

26/06/2009 21:30:47
The GISS record;

Global Land+Ocean Surface Temperature Anomaly (C)

(Base: 1951-1980)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean


1998 .57 .38
1999 .33 .42
2000 .33 .45
2001 .48 .45
2002 .56 .48
2003 .55 .54
2004 .48 .55
2005 .62 .55
2006 .55 .53
2007 .57 *
2008 .44 *

2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007 were all warmer than 2001.

That's a funny sort of cooling trend.
151

seanie,

26/06/2009 21:31:48
The HADCRU record;

Global Temperature (Climatic Research Unit)

Year, Anomaly, Smoothed

2001, 0.409, 0.389
2002, 0.464, 0.403
2003, 0.473, 0.413
2004, 0.447, 0.419
2005, 0.482, 0.420
2006, 0.422, 0.419
2007, 0.405, 0.415
2008, 0.325, 0.411

2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 were all warmer than 2001.

That's a funny sort of cooling trend.
152

seanie,

26/06/2009 21:38:56
And let's remind ourselves of what Insomnia wrote in #45;

"...it is quite absurd to look at a small short term trend like the 1970s-2000 warming and say anything other than: "its meaningless".

Only to follow it up in #103 with;

"...from around 2005 the trend is very clearly toward the floor."

That's right folks.

20-30 years is far too short to identify a meaningful trend.

But about 4 years is just plenty.

Comedy gold.......
153

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 22:50:24
Here are the three questions the global warmers simply couldn't answer when Steve Fielding asked them:

1. Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?

2. Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?

3. Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?
154

Isonomia,

Lenzie 26/06/2009 22:51:17
Here are the three questions that Senator Steve Fielding asked the Australian government global warming advisors and they point blank refused to answer:-

1. Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?

2. Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?

3. Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?
155

seanie,

26/06/2009 23:03:54
1. CO2 has increased by about 5 per cent since 1998 but average global temperatures have not cooled over the same period. The last five years have been warmer than the five before that and the smoothed averages, filtering out the noise of natural interannual variability, are all higher now than in 1998.

2. No.

3. No.
156

seanie,

26/06/2009 23:04:25
Glad we cleared that up.
157

seanie,

26/06/2009 23:47:52
Since 1998 looms large, let's look at the whole issue of 'noise'.

The HADCRU data

Year, Anomaly

1998, 0.546
1999, 0.296
2000, 0.270
2001, 0.409
2002, 0.464
2003, 0.473
2004, 0.447
2005, 0.482
2006, 0.422
2007, 0.405
2008, 0.325

So now let's look at the inter-annual change...
158

seanie,

26/06/2009 23:48:06
1998-99, -0.250
1999-00, -0.026
2000-01, +0.139
2001-02, +0.055
2002-03, +0.009
2003-04, -0.026
2004-05, +0.035
2005-06, -0.060
2006-07, -0.017
2007-08, -0.081
159

seanie,

26/06/2009 23:56:16
And remember the complaint is that the "IPCC predicted trend was 1.4-5.8C/century."

Which is 0.014-0.058 per year.

Compare that to the above figures for inter-annual variability.

It's clear that the scope for natural year-on-year variabiltiy far exceeds the predicted warming trend. So, over short periods, that warming trend can be expected to be masked by that 'noise' in the temperature record.

None of the data suggests any let up in the anticipated long term warming trend.
160

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 27/06/2009 00:14:49
If Isonomia had even begun to understand what has been said to him about these matters, or had read and understood the Tamino articles he was directed to, he would be embarrassed to repeat the asinine questions that he flaunts so proudly in #153/4.

He would understand that the reason people sometimes refuse to answer such questions is that they are probably thinking "How can anyone make such a public fool of himself to to ask such questions so riddled with misunderstandings and ignorance, and perhaps also with a malevolent intention to mislead others."

Innocent questions?? Don't be such an idiot.
161

Isonomia,

Lenzie 27/06/2009 00:33:18
Slioch, if that's the kind of response Steve Fielding got when he asked those questions, then it's hardly surprising that he decided against manmade global warming.

The simple truth is that when people like Steve Fielding stop accepting what the "experts" (aka new age hippies) tell them, and go and look for the evidence for manmade global warming, they find there isn't any.

And as the only evidence there ever was, was the rise in temperature in the 20th century and with the fall in temperature in the 21st century it is just a matter of time before most people follow Steve Fielding.

162

seanie,

27/06/2009 00:37:31
"...the fall in temperature in the 21st century..."

You've not been paying attention;

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

The HADCRU anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.296
1999-2003: + 0.382
2004-2008: + 0.416

The most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming.
163

seanie,

27/06/2009 00:38:18
"...the fall in temperature in the 21st century..."

You've not been paying attention;

The GISS anomalies;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.38
1999-2003: + 0.45
2004-2008: + 0.53

Again the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming.
164

seanie,

27/06/2009 00:39:27
And let's not forget the longer timescale.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The GISS anomalies, averaged over decades, going back to the 30s.

1930-1939: - 0.28
1940-1949: + 0.44
1950-1959: - 0.20
1960-1969: - 0.12
1970-1979: + 0.01
1980-1989: + 0.18
1990-1999: + 0.32

And so far this decade?

2000-2008: + 0.46

So, with only a few months left to go, the decade we're currently in is easily going to be the hottest on record.

That's a funny sort of fall in temperature you've identified.
165

eyeswider,

27/06/2009 01:01:00
http://www.smhi.se/content/1/c6/02/50/31/attatchments/upps_www.pdf

Uppsala, Sweden 1722-2005

Interesting period the first 20 years of that record.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005IJCli..25.1055B

based upon:
http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/445.pdf

Armagh, Ireland 1796-2002

".....if the baseline against which current temperatures are compared were moved from the late 19th century to include the earlier warm period, the apparent warming at the end of the late 20th century would be correspondingly reduced."


Climate is not stable absent human activity.

Proof of warming is not proof that CO2 causes warming.

Models are not proof of anything.
166

Isonomia,

Lenzie 27/06/2009 01:05:51
The linear regression (trend) of the Met Office Global temperature data for this century is -1.2C/century COOLING.

Why do some people keep spreading the lies about WMD (weather of mass destruction). The current global temperature variation is well within the normal variation you would expect based on the noise profile of the temperature.

By my calculation the downward trend starts if you take any period after February 2000, which on current trends means that there's only another six months left for Seanie to spread his deceitful statistics and then then he will have no alternative but to finally admit the the temperature trend is down!
167

Isonomia,

Lenzie 27/06/2009 01:09:37
Eyeswider: "Models are not proof of anything."

Models prove nothing? Rubbish!

There is a universal law that models induce upward trend ... and the trend is higher the less they are wearing! .... except in Seanie's case.
168

eyeswider,

27/06/2009 01:17:23
#167 They would need to be super-models to get my attention at my age ;-)

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:120/trend/plot/rss/last:120/trend/plot/uah/last:120/plot/rss/last:120

Satellites show @0.07C rise over the last 10 years. Even if the world keeps warming at that rate, which it will not, it is nowhere near catastrophic this next 100 years.

169

seanie,

27/06/2009 08:26:04
I've posted the links to the data. Get a calculator and try it yourself.

Again the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.

That's just a mathematical fact.
170

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 27/06/2009 09:14:36
#169 Seanie

Mathematical facts mean nothing to people who are determined not to believe something that presents a major threat to their world view. To such people 2 + 2 really can equal 5 (or, in Isonomia's case, 3).
171

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 27/06/2009 09:46:04
#165 eyeswider

".....if the baseline against which current temperatures are compared were moved from the late 19th century to include the earlier warm period, the apparent warming at the end of the late 20th century would be correspondingly reduced."

It makes not the slightest difference what baseline is used, the warming at the end of the late 20th century, shown in the data in the paper, remains the same. Whether that would be "apparent" to an observer, is a moot point: I suppose it depends on how biased the observer is. But such a statement should have no place in a competent paper describing physical processes.

#168
You are correct to point out that the two satellite series show a rise in global temperature over the last ten years. So do the two surface series. The full results are as follows:
UAH (satellite) +0.097/decade
RSS (satellite) +0.070/decade
HADCRU (surface) +0.056/decade
GISS (surface) +0.152/decade

None of those results should be regarded as statistically significant, and certainly none can be meaningfully extrapolated to the end of this century.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.