Brace yourself for climate-change-denier delight, as the World Meteorological Organization is expecting global temperatures to drop this year thanks to a strong La Niña. But, of course, says WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud, "When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year. You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming." You know, lest your friendly neighborhood skeptic needs reminding.
source: BBC News
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
What to make of the new climate poll
Comments
View as Threaded
Delay And Deny Posted 8:15 am
04 Apr 2008
Cooling = Warming
Only in Greenspeak.
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 8:40 am
04 Apr 2008
The deniers are trying to sew uncertainty in the non-scientific community. Uncertainty that leads to inaction. Because they are being paid.
What I don't understand is why they are swarming all over this site. Do they really think they are fooling anyone? Seems, well, stupid. But then this is a group that is trying to refute reality smacking them in the face.
Permalink
ViridianSeattle Posted 3:06 am
05 Apr 2008
a) it is somewhat effective strategy to have shills post pro-pollution propaganda on green sites
b) and the folks "just trying to make next quarters numbers" (regardless of how many bodies they have to climb over in the process ;-) don't even have to pay them (directly)
Jabby above is a fine example of the breed. You can get that sort of crank for free by simply spending money on targeted advertising. All you have to do is create an identity for them to assume (I haven't looked too closely, but I think our little friend here has embraced "rugged individualist standing against the elitist environmentalists", though there are always new counterfactual ID's being rolled out, so it's hard to tell. He, of course, has no idea. If he had the gift of introspection he wouldn't be wasting his time here... :-)
I'm not sure what the best strategy for dealing with these sort of social idiot savants is, though. Jabby, for instance, isn't actively abusive, and I'd guess that for regulars like me he's actually kind of comforting (you figure if your opponents are that clueless you have a good chance of winning - in much the same way lots of liberals secretly like having Mallard Filmore around as long as we don't have to actually read it ).
I suppose there is a possibility that he's passing disinformation to newbies, though. Perhaps some sort of tag could be attached to posters that lie all the time? Probably more trouble than it's worth, really.
I guess I vote that we keep him as a sort of mascot... :-)
Permalink
tico89 Posted 7:10 am
05 Apr 2008
Actually, I agree with you Viridian. He is kind of fun to have around, and I'm fairly sure he's the longest lasting troll we've ever had on here. The day I don't see his comments all over Gristmill, I will feel a twinge of regret at the loss of such a brilliant source of humour. He could even believe in AGW, and merely be a brilliant satirist of the denier viewpoint.
Apropos La Niña: is it just me, or are these events becoming more and more frequent? I remember reading once you expect them a couple of times a decade, but we just had an El Niño the year before last.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:51 am
05 Apr 2008
A seasonal variation in the onset of postoperative adhesive small bowel obstruction is related to changes in the climate
Conclusion. The typical winter weather in Tokyo is characterised by low temperatures, low humidity and moderate air pressure. These winter climate conditions could be correlated with an increased incidence of postoperative small bowel obstruction in Tokyo during our observation period.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'Oceania'...
http://www.gerenser.com/1984/quote.html
"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated." --pg 60
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:53 am
05 Apr 2008
Increased "noise" or fluctuations is also a sign of climate imbalance.
If this is noise, then most should be deaf by now.
Temperatures have been static since 1998. Now they are declining. Yet CO2 continued to increase to record levels during the 00s.
How could there be any correlation?
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 3:37 pm
05 Apr 2008
In the "at rest" state, the coils were all in contact with their neighbors, so that the entire spring was only about four inches long. The coils were soft enough and numerous enough that you could easily pull the two ends more than five feet apart without causing permanent deformation of the coils.
One method of playing with the toy was to hold the two ends of the spring in your hands, with your hands "palms up" a few inches apart, such that the Slinky formed a rainbow-like arch between your palms. By alternately raising one hand and lowering the other, it was possible to make the central mass of coils smoothly move from the higher hand to the lower hand, almost as if you were "pouring" the coils like water.
If you got creative with your hand movements, either by moving them faster or slower than the natural frequency of the coil flow, or by moving one hand more than the other, it was possible to make the central mass of coils move in opposition to the motion of your hands.
While we were playing like this, we enjoyed the idea that it was possible to synchronize the movement of the coils with the movement of our hands, or to produce a wide variety of motions where the coils were "out of phase" with our hands.
But regardless of the phase relationship between the coil flow and our hand motions, we always knew that our hands were driving the system.
The idea that a driving function and a driven function must always be in phase is wrong. The phase relationship depends on the responsiveness of the functions.
It is thus also wrong to think that there can be no cause-and-effect relationship between functions which are sometimes (or even always) out-of-phase.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:04 am
06 Apr 2008
The idea that a driving function and a driven function must always be in phase is wrong. The phase relationship depends on the responsiveness of the functions.
Yes, and obviously this is the 'forcing' argument...that the CO2 is not directly driving the the heating, but acting as an input to a system that keeps that system (Global Warming) going.
Another analogy is a swing. I do not make the person in the swing go higher and higher by constant pushing, but by pushing at just the right time.
If you got creative with your hand movements, either by moving them faster or slower than the natural frequency of the coil flow, or by moving one hand more than the other, it was possible to make the central mass of coils move in opposition to the motion of your hands.
However, with both this arguments, Gore's presentation falls apart (as does the IPCCs) because here the "System" (earth) is a contained system that has its own frequency and standard maxima/minimum. So, to a point, a person can push and push and the swing will go up higher and higher and then that's it. The swing has its own balance. In the same way that your Slinky didn't go into a state of super large oscillations and explode in your hands.
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 6:15 am
06 Apr 2008
Thus one of the key questions we might ask is whether we really want to risk accelerating any changes to the climate we, and all the other species, are currently adapted to, even if our accelerations will not significantly affect the achievable maximum (or subsequent minimum).
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:23 am
06 Apr 2008
There appears to be some evidence that as the climate moves outside the range of its typical thermal median, considerable loss of life occurs.
In 1820 there were 1 billion humans.
In 2008 there are 6 billion.
You and I have a 5 out 6 chance of not being here right now if it weren't for Global Warming and all the benefits that accrued to human life from warmer temperatures.
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 10:17 am
06 Apr 2008
But if one does not exist, I think the non-existent-one probably is not able to regret it. And if one exists and injures the world, I'm not sure one's existence is still a good thing.
If the climate has warmed by X degrees since 1820 and our population has exploded, endangering not just the other species but our own, how can we be sure an additional X degrees of accelerated warming is good? If the answer is "we can't", should we be cautious in the face of the uncertainty?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:11 pm
06 Apr 2008
"...But regardless of the phase relationship between the coil flow and our hand motions, we always knew that our hands were driving the system.
The idea that a driving function and a driven function must always be in phase is wrong. The phase relationship depends on the responsiveness of the functions.
It is thus also wrong to think that there can be no cause-and-effect relationship between functions which are sometimes (or even always) out-of-phase..."
Your "slinky" toy may seem a good analogy, but bear in mind that it is a very "pure" purpose-built machine, which has no significant inefficiencies, and all the +/- impulses and elastic reactions are in-series in special appositions. Another thing is that it is not really driven by the hands, but by utilizing bio-feedback of hand-eye-brain, to learn and tune a skill for a desired result. A subtle error in skill in trying to achieve desired complex interactions, and I imagine, (I have not tried a slinky), the result would be "disappointing". Can you think of any natural process that is analogous to your more complex intelligence driven synchronicity skills on a special machine?
Also, your special purpose-built machine would not work if it was less perfect, say with randomly varying diameters of the coils, or something with different responses were to be linked in parallel, (as distinct from in-series), to it etc. In free-fall, the machine would behave differently without the downward gravitational force on your "rainbow" shape, and so-on. A clever (and very, very patient) engineer, could probably accurately calculate the weird relative movements and phases etc, if all its material and metrology details were known. This again makes the machine very different to what happens in climate change matters.
The greenhouse theory as it is applied to an increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere requires that all other things being equal, the average surface air temperature, will increase in a progressive but complex way. (~logarithmically)
Whilst there has been a general rise in both parameters over the last century or so, there was a pronounced cooling period from about 1940 to 1958, depending on source and smoothing method. It was also arguably ~flat from about 1950 to maybe 1978. It has also been ~flat for the last ten years, and 2008 may well net a down-trend for eleven years. (again, depending on source and smoothing/trending techniques used)
Remember, that the AGW theory, all other things being equal, should show a progressive rise in temperature, with the progressive rise of CO2. Not only are the down, or flat trends uncharacteristic of this simple progressive relationship, but the very sharp rise for two decades prior to 1998, is also uncharacteristic.
There are several possible causes for these deviations:
a) There is something else causing temperature change other than, or in addition to increasing CO2.........and/or
b) The data contain errors, and/or c) are not representative of realistic parameters.
Concerning b) Bad data can be proven in part, and c) What the heck is a global average temperature anyway, and does recent infra-red measurement of CO2 on a volcanic Hawaiian island at over 3,000 metres altitude represent a global average anyway?
But that's all another L O N G story!
Regards, BobFJ
Permalink
wendigo Posted 2:47 am
07 Apr 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:36 am
07 Apr 2008
If I were to do the same thing usin' Phoenix, then we could conclude that the global average tempurature reaches over 100 degrees in the summer and that the Amazon rainforest is a desert.
Second, and once again as we've discussed before, stop trying to use global warming as the primary reason behind the human population explosion.
Any real reasearch will show that the populoation explosion is attributed to a large number of causes. Also that, as a whole (with notable exceptions), until recently, the temperature was relatively stable during the population explosion.
Also, as has been pointed out to ya before, the vast majority of the people born in the population explosion were born in third world countries, live in poverity, and lack access to things such as clean water and adequate food supplies.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:27 am
07 Apr 2008
Yes, I agree, but the T versus CO2 relationship alone, (= all other things being equal), is not a complex system, therefore, obviously there must be something else that causes departure from that simple characteristic relationship.
Thank you for further demonstrating my point.
Permalink
manacker Posted 12:24 pm
07 Apr 2008
""When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year. You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming." You know, lest your friendly neighborhood skeptic needs reminding."
Both the surface and satellite records show that there has been no warming in the past decade (1998-2008).
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
To confirm this, all you have to do is download the monthly data from January 1998 to today into Excel and put in the linear trend line.
You will see that it is flat.
When the IPCC Chairman was recently asked about this, he said he would check if there were possibly natural factors that had caused this observed "plateau".
The prior trend from 1976 to 1998 has been used by IPCC as the basis for claiming accelerated global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
This record covers 22 years, or 2.2 times the time span of the most recent flat trend.
On this basis IPCC projected temperature increase of 0.2 degrees C per decade for the first two decades of the 21st century.
Is the most recent 10-year record a "trend"? Is it a temporary "anomaly"? Who knows?
We will have to wait and see.
But it does raise serious questions about the ability of the IPCC climate models to project future temperature increase.
Now there are those that will "debunk" the statement that global warming appears to have slowed down by accusing me of introducing an "artifact" by choosing January 2008 as the start of the "past decade", since 1998 was the warmest year on record.
So I did the same analysis with different starting points.
If I plot the trend starting January 1999 I get a linear trend of +0.009 degrees C per decade (less than 5 percent of the +0.2 degrees C per decade as projected for the first two decades in the 21st century by IPCC in its 2007 SPM report). Looks pretty close to "flat" to me.
Then I also checked the actual trend with later start dates:
Starting in 2000, the warming trend is +0.004 degrees C per decade
Starting in 2001, the cooling trend is -0.009 degrees C per decade
Starting in 2002, the cooling trend is -0.018 degrees C per decade
Starting in 2003, the cooling trend is -0.023 degrees C per decade
It looks like the IPCC Chairman is correct when he refers to the recent flat trend as a "plateau" in global warming and the "debunkers" of the flat trend are "flat wrong", based on the facts.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:34 pm
07 Apr 2008
The record over the past 10 years shows that global warming has stopped.
The IPCC Chairman has acknowledged that there has been a "plateau" in global warming.
So let's all accept this fact and be happy.
The end of the world (from global warming) is not near despite the hysterical predictions of James E. Hansen and Al Gore.
Isn't that good news, folks?
Max
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:19 pm
07 Apr 2008
Really, now? Care to cite him specifically with that statement? Provide a link?
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:58 pm
07 Apr 2008
Really, now? Care to cite him specifically with that statement? Provide a link?"
Check:
http://www.globalgoldtalk.com/investments/72825-ipcc-chai ...
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/2008_01.htm ...
http://groups.google.com.eg/group/aus.invest/browse_threa ...
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/200 ...
http://www.britanniaradio.co.uk/?q=node/4659
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/cli ...
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:01 pm
07 Apr 2008
You can confirm, all for yourself, that there has been a "plateau" in warming over the past decade.
The facts are there.
All you have to do is check the data. It's real easy.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:12 pm
07 Apr 2008
If anyone has any data that refute this, please bring it now.
Otherwise admit that this is the case.
Global warming showed major temperature increase during the 22-year period from 1976 to around 1998 (following a cooling trend during the 31-year period from around 1945 to 1976). Now it has started to level off (or even cool down) in the 10-year period starting in 1998.
Whether this trend will continue is anyone's guess.
You can go back even further and you will see multidecadal swings from warming to cooling, with an underlying warming trend of around 1 degree C over the past 150 years.
Those are the facts, folks.
Everything else is conjecture and hype.
Max
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:54 am
08 Apr 2008
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel
Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look
into the theory of a temperature plateau so far this century.
"One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this
really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors
compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
Where, exactly, in there does it say that he confirms, and supports the theory that there is a "plateau". He says he'll "look into it".
Just because someone looks into somethin', that doesn't mean they acknowledge it's existence.
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:20 am
08 Apr 2008
Hi TP,
You wrote: "Just because someone looks into somethin', that doesn't mean they acknowledge it's existence."
The temperature "plateau" is an established fact, supported by the actual global land and sea surface temperature anomaly record, as measured by Hadley and others.
All you have to do to confirm this is download the data, plot it in Excel and put in a linear trend line.
The trend for the past decade has been "flat".
This is true even if you eliminate the record year 1998.
It is true if you start with the 21st century.
Pachauri is well enough informed to know about these things.
He said he would look into the reasons for this apparent plateau (i.e. "are there natural factors compensating?"), not that he would confirm that it actually exists (since no confirmation or acknowledgement of an established fact is required).
Whether the past decade constitutes a new trend or is just a 10-year "blip" in the curve is a matter of conjecture and not really pertinent to the discussion at this point.
IPCC projected linear rate of increase of 0.2C per decade for the first two decades of the 21st century. So far the first 8 years of the 21st century have been flat.
Pachauri will let us know his take on what the causes are for this plateau. Let's see what he tells us.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:20 am
08 Apr 2008
Hi TP,
Here's some more stuff on temperatures that might interest you.
Since global temperature records have been kept (based on the UK's Hadley Centre), and we have been emerging from the Little Ice Age, there have been several multi-decadal cycles from warming to cooling, with an overall slight warming trend.
Period Trend Years Increase
1860-1879 0.196 20 0.39
1879-1906 -0.047 27 -0.13
1906-1940 0.161 35 0.56
1940-1976 -0.020 36 -0.07
1976-1998 0.175 22 0.39
1998-2008 0.000 10 0.00
Trend is linear decadal trend in degreesC/decade
Increase is linear increase over period in degreesC
Between 1850 and around 1860 there was a very slight cooling trend.
This trend reversed to a warming trend for the next 20 years until around 1879 (the highest decadal rate of increase since records have been taken).
This was followed by another cooling trend until around 1906.
Then came another warming trend until around 1940, followed by a slight cooling trend until around 1976 (this one has been very briefly rationalized by IPCC, without any supporting evidence, as having been caused by anthropogenic aerosol emissions).
Following this, we had a trend with the second highest decadal rate of increase from 1976 to 1998.
This trend appears to have reached a "plateau" from 1998 to today, in sharp contrast to the IPCC projections from model studies, which predicted a record rate of increase of 0.2 degrees C per decade for the first two decades in the 21st century.
The longer-term trend over all these cycles has been an increase of somewhat more than 1 degree C over the 150+ years of measurement.
In its TAR (2001) IPCC reported an increase over the 20th century (1901-2000) of 0.6 degree C.
If one "jiggles" the definition of the 20th century (as IPCC did in its 2007 SPM report) to replace the 1900-1906 cooling trend with an essentially flat trend from 2000 to 2006, one can show a 100-year increase of 0.74 degrees C.
Interestingly, the highest decadal rate of increase occurred over the 20-year period from 1860 to 1879, in the "horse and buggy" days long before AGW was a problem.
The multidecadal cycles are apparent in the record, as is the underlying warming trend over the entire period.
Whether or not the past 10 years are the beginning of a new "flat" or cooling cycle remains to be seen.
What is apparent, however, is:
· that temperatures are in an overall slow rising trend
· that there are multidecadal swings from slight cooling to warming
· that the impacts of various "forcing" components on the global average temperature are not as simple as IPCC would have us believe
· that the ability of climate models to predict temperature trends is limited
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 10:30 am
08 Apr 2008
Kinda like when I say I'll "look into" the research of Bigfoot's existence.
Just cause I look into it, that doesn't mean that I'll determine that Bigfoot exists.
IPCC projected linear rate of increase of 0.2C per decade for the first two decades of the 21st century. So far the first 8 years of the 21st century have been flat.
I don't know which version of the report you're referin' to, but the latest version cleary shows a rise in temperatures...not a predicted rise, but an actual, measured worldwide average rise in temperatures, for at least the first 6 years of this century.
Please provide a link to the section of the latest IPCC report that indicates that temperatures have remained flat durin' the first 6 years of this century to verify your claims.
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:44 am
09 Apr 2008
Hey TP,
You wrote: "Please provide a link to the section of the latest IPCC report that indicates that temperatures have remained flat durin' the first 6 years of this century to verify your claims."
I am not talking about the "first 6 years". I am talking about the latest decade, i.e. 1998 to 2008.
The IPCC report? Duh!
Of course they have not brought anyone's attention to this fact.
You need to go to the SOURCE of the data, in this case the Hadley record of the globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
Then you need to download the data for the period January 1998 to February 2008.
You need to plot this actually observed temperature trend into Excel and then put in a linear trend line.
You will see that the trend is flat (as I am sure Dr. Pachauri is fully aware, since it is his business to be aware of what is going on in "global temperatures").
It's not too hard to do this to convince yourself of what is REALLY going on out there, TP. If you are not able to do these steps yourself, get someone who knows how to work Excel to do it for you.
Just try it, and you will see that there has been a "plateau" since 1998.
And Pachauri has said he will let us know the reason for this observed "plateau"
Get it?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:50 am
09 Apr 2008
Once you have absorbed the fact that the temperature trend over the past decade has been flat, you may wish to check out my other post covering longer term trends and fluctuations.
You won't find much about these in the IPCC reports either.
But follow my advice. Eliminate the "middle man".
Go to the SOURCE of the data, not to IPCC, if you want facts on global temperature trends.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:42 am
09 Apr 2008
The first six years was from 2000 to 2006, dummy.
Figures aren't even out for 2008 (because the year isn't even over yet).
And the report was released before the figures for 2007 could be confirmed.
The IPCC report shows an increase in average temperatures from 2000 to 2006. It also shows an increase from 1995 to 1999.
Once again, these were actual measurements, not predictions, so where exactly do ya get the idea that the temperature plateau was reached in the last decade?
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:34 pm
09 Apr 2008
Don't be impolite and call me "dummy".
Just get someone who can work Excel to download the Hadley temperature anomaly figures from January (or if you prefer March) 1998 to February 2008 and put in a linear trend line.
YOU WILL SEE THAT THE GLOBALLY AVERAGED SURFACE LAND AND SEA TEMPERATURE ANOMALY TREND HAS BEEN FLAT FOR THE PAST DECADE.
Do not obfuscate, do not change the subject, do not waffle.
Just check the facts.
They are plain for everyone to see.
And do not call those that bring your attention to this fact a "dummy".
It just shows that you are impolite (and, possibly, immature).
Got it?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:50 am
10 Apr 2008
Did ya do this just by yourself?
'Cause I find it awfully suspicious that somehow you've come up with a different conclusion than almost every other reputable climatologist on the planet.
I find it even more suspicious since you're not a climatologist yourself.
So what, exactly, you're sayin' that the thousands certified climatologists are wrong and you're right, just 'cause you're usin' the Hadley model?
They are plain for everyone to see.
Then how come none of the climatologists seem to agree with you, if the "facts" are so plain to see?
There's a reason why we call people like you dummys...it's cause you somehow think that you know more 'bout the subject than thousands of experts who have spent decades researching the subject of climate.
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 6:35 am
10 Apr 2008
I would encourage all Grist readers who are curious about this to use the link below, visit the Hadley web site, and look at the graph which Hadley plots from their data set, for the years 1850 - 2007.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
The blue line on the graph is the smoothed annual average of the annual average temperatures, within their 95% confidence bars. As best I can read the graph, this blue "smoothed annual average" line shows a temperature increase of around 0.1 degrees C for the eight years from 1998 - 2005 inclusive, with a slight decrease of perhaps 0.01 degrees C from 2005 - 2007, giving an overall increase of 0.9 degrees C over that specific ten year span.
This trend does not seem to be flat.
We might reasonably wonder how it is that a commenter on this thread can calculate a flat trend from the Hadley data, when Hadley's calculations from the same data show a significant temperature rise.
The answer might be that a linear trend line is not very good at showing trends in data with non-linear variations, such as this temperature data.
That may also explain why Hadley does not use a linear trend line on their graph of their data.
For comparison, another graph of the temperature trend was recently posted on Grist, accessible at the link below:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/4/4/121748/2663
This graph uses a 5 year mean (the red line on the graph) to try to identify the trend.
-----
I think it is very important to understand that even though non-linear trend calculations are more accurate than linear trend calculations when dealing with non-linear data sets, focusing on small parts of a data set can lead to confusion about overall trends regardless of the calculation method.
The complexity of trend calculations also means that readers who don't have math educations should not rely exclusively on their own calculations, but should seek interpretation from credible sources.
------
Hope this helps...
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 7:07 am
10 Apr 2008
"The blue line on the graph is the smoothed annual average of the annual average temperatures, within their 95% confidence bars. As best I can read the graph, this blue "smoothed annual average" line shows a temperature increase of around 0.1 degrees C for the eight years from 1998 - 2005 inclusive, with a slight decrease of perhaps 0.01 degrees C from 2005 - 2007, giving an overall increase of 0.9 degrees C over that specific ten year span."
Obviously that 0.9 degrees C number was supposed to be 0.09 degrees C. Sorry for the typo.
-----
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 7:25 am
10 Apr 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:51 am
10 Apr 2008
The Hadley trend from January 1998 to February 2008 is flat.
The Hadley record from January 2000 to February 2008 shows a warming trend of +0.05C/decade.
The Hadley record from January 2001 to February 2008 shows a cooling trend of -.11C/decade.
Go to Hadley, the source of the data, MNG, not to a Gristmill graph or to an IPCC report. These will only confuse the issue.
This is what I have advised TP to do, but he has not done so. Maybe it is because he knows full well what the data show.
The data are the data and that is what they tell us has happened over the past decade including the most recent data points.
It's actually quite simple.
The trend has been flat for the past decade.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:56 am
10 Apr 2008
Happy plotting!
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:18 am
10 Apr 2008
Another tip for TP alone. Get someone who knows how to work Excel to download the Hadley data directly and draw a linear trend line for you (if you are unfamiliar with how Excel works). You will see that I am not a "dummy", after all.
Happy plotting!
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 10:06 am
10 Apr 2008
Deniers are not interested in reason or discourse. They are engaging in a propaganda war. Motivated by greed and ideology, they are interested only in perpetrating the notion that there is a controversy about global warming and its causes.
The good news is that the public and the media are finally on to them, and are no longer buying it.
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:21 pm
10 Apr 2008
"Motivated by greed and ideology?"
Hmmm... What a bunch of unsubstantiated rhetorical hogwash!
Grow up, buddy.
We need MNG (or your Mommy) to teach you some basic manners (or spank your bottom).
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:31 pm
10 Apr 2008
Don't let the rant from Robco1 distract you from downloading the Hadley data and checking it out.
It will probably be an eye-opener for you.
Keep me posted on your progress.
Regards,
Max
PS Just stick with facts, MNG. No need to get distracted by a "temperature trend" that "was recently posted on Grist", or get into a philosophical discussion about "readers who don't have math educations should not rely exclusively on their own calculations, but should seek interpretation from credible sources."
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:35 pm
10 Apr 2008
Just a tip, so you don't look silly next time.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 1:50 pm
10 Apr 2008
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
When you visit this web page, look at the header at the top of the page. You will see that you are at the Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets web site.
Look at the graph on this page. This isn't a Grist graph. It isn't an IPCC graph. It is Hadley's own graph, with Hadley's trend line calculated from Hadley's data.
Judge for yourselves...
-----
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 3:51 pm
10 Apr 2008
I haven't confirmed this with the author of that Grist story, but I think the graph on that page was derived from NASA GISS data.
The link below, to a NASA GISS web site, has a very similar graph on it, which as I mentioned previously uses a different method of calculating the trend than Hadley used with their data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
There are other graphs of temperature on that web page as well.
This GISS web page is the responsibility of James E. Hansen, which is probably why one of the other commenters on this thread referred to the graph in the aforementioned Grist story as an "IPCC" graph.
Grist readers should be aware that there is more than one "data set" of temperature data in use by climate researchers. Hadley and NASA GISS are two of them. The data sets apparently don't precisely agree with each other and each data set has its supporters and detractors.
-----
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:08 pm
10 Apr 2008
Do you realize that you are avoiding the issue here?
Rather than talking about what is an "IPCC graph" and other obfuscations, just do yourself a simple favor and actually download the Hadley Centre raw data. It is actually very easy for anyone to do, without the need of expert opinion or advice from climate experts.
You made a statement: "Grist readers should be aware that there is more than one "data set" of temperature data in use by climate researchers. Hadley and NASA GISS are two of them. The data sets apparently don't precisely agree with each other and each data set has its supporters and detractors."
Duh! This is a rather obvious statement that has nothing to do with the issue here. UAH is another data set. This also has nothing to do with our discussion.
You will see, MNG, that all of these "data sets" agree that the temperature trend from January 1998 to February 2008 was flat. "Flat" means no increase in temperature for 10 years (= 1 decade). Is this difficult to grasp?
Just admit this fact and then we can move on.
Otherwise, bring evidence why this is not correct.
This is called "put up or shut up".
"Hoping to be nice, anyway."
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:40 pm
10 Apr 2008
Have you heard the expression: "you can prove anything with statistics'? There is another coarser one about knickers, you may have heard.
Did you know there are quite a variety of filters, and whatnot, which can give different outcomes over a long-term data set. However, these do not make any sense at all over a short term period. Max is perfectly correct in taking a linear trend over the past ten years or so. Nothing else would be meaningfull.
Incidentally, the infamous hockey-stick (MBH99)
used a 40-year smoothing, with an end-cheat of 20-years, but what sort of filter I do not know.
Permalink
sarahv81 Posted 1:22 am
11 Apr 2008
There's a charity I'm involved with called Together.com that is based around these principles. Some of the things you can do are so straightforward, and they're also running a competition at the moment in which you can win a load of eco-friendly prizes. Seeing as its a "confess your eco sins" theme, even some of you sceptics might be interested...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:38 am
11 Apr 2008
In your reference recently to a trend graph, I was surprised to see that the annual trend graph was stated to use a: 21-point binomial filter. I had not heard of such a filter before and it was late, so I let it pass. My puzzle was that if this was a weasel-name for 21-year smoothing, then the smoothed line should end 10.5 years short of the end of the data. To explain more; a 21-year smoothing, (of which there are several varieties) means that for any point in the data set, all the data for 10.5 years either side of that point is treated mathematically to obtain a smoothed trend at its centre. This is done, in order to eliminate noise, and emphasise low frequency trends.Thus, at the end of the data set, there is no data available to the right of that point. Why 21 years? Well it can be any period in order to achieve a desired result in smoothing. As I mentioned before MBH99 employed 40-year smoothing.
So the question remains; where did Hadley find additional data out to about 2018?
So, I went to a data expert's site, and here you have a more detailed review @
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2955
Enjoy your reading. BobFJ
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:45 am
11 Apr 2008
(But not taxes etc, because the money could be better not wasted but used for the good of humanity, where a great deal of awful suffering exists)
Regards BobFJ
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:02 pm
11 Apr 2008
Hi Sarah,
While I fully agree with your premise that "it make sense to be proactive", I can also endorse Black Wallaby's remark to you.
The 4 million deaths annually attributed by the WHO to lack of clean drinking water and electrical power among the hundreds of millions of poorest individuals of this world is a horrible problem, as you will surely agree.
The 20,000 individuals that lose their lives from "extreme weather events" (including extreme cold) annually are an insignificant drop in the bucket in comparison.
The real problem here, Sarah, is that "global warming" is a "rich man's (and woman's)" problem involving billions of dollars of research grants, etc. and potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes, ( i.e. really big bucks) being shuffled around by politicians, bureaucrats, carbon trading companies, hedge funds, etc. This translates into big bucks for some already rich folks.
The problems of the poorest who are dying every year from the lack of clean drinking water or electrical power to cook without inside burning of wood, dung, etc. is less "sexy", because it is a "poor man's (and woman's) problem. No "big bucks" being shuffled around by already well-to-do individuals. No big PR or media campaigns. No big bucks to be made by already well-to-do folks.
My suggestion would be: let's solve the real problems first, before we get distracted by the virtual computer generated "maybe future" problem of possibly alarming "global warming".
What do you think, Sarah?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:58 pm
11 Apr 2008
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
The wiggly black line is an arbitrarily selected 20-year smoothing of apparently unpublished code which was selected to give a desired low frequency smoothing. By definition, there is no data available for the last half cycle of 10 years, (See my earlier posts), so there is apparently an extrapolation coding to "invent" that missing data through to ~2018.
However, if we draw a vertical line at 1998, and then black-out everything to the left, that becomes irrelevant, and we can then purely consider the trend from thence forward. Notice that 1998 is a high spike, which is followed by two down reversals which virtually neutralize it.
Now don't worry about what sort of statistical treatment of whomever's choice might be applied to this 10-year period, or any part of it; just eyeball it and you should be able to see that the trend over that short period is flat. It's quite simple really, no need to make a meal of it!
PLEASE READ @: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2955
For greater understanding
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:15 am
12 Apr 2008
Just went through all four global temperature records.
They all pretty much show that the most recent global warming trend stopped in 2001.
The linear trend of the 4 records from January 2001 to today is:
Hadley: -0.108 deg C per decade
RSS: -0.060 deg C per decade
UAH: -0.004 deg C per decade
GISS: 0.00 deg C per decade
Who knows if this flat/cooling trend will continue beyond the past seven years?
At which point will we be able to say that these data, indeed, constitute a new trend and not just a "blip" in the curve?
I do not want to make any forecasts here, because forecasts are tricky.
Hope this concludes our exchange on recent global temperature trends.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 7:22 am
12 Apr 2008
Why is it, exactly, do ya think that your analysis, contradicts that of more than 4,000 certified climatologists with advanced degrees and decades of research behind 'em?
What, exactly, is your profession of field of study that would make you or your idea that temperatures have stabilized, in anyway credible?
You keep sayin' that these "facts" are plain to see, and yet the scientific community doesn't seem to agree with these "facts"...so how, exactly do ya explain?
Do ya believe it is all a conspiracy?
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:43 am
12 Apr 2008
BTW January 1, 2001 is the official beginning of the "21st century" (Wikipedia), so it is accurate to say that all four temperature records confirm that there has been no trend of global warming in this century, right?
(Maybe one should add a "so far" disclaimer, to be on the safe side.)
But it does raise a question about the sub-headline of the lead article here: "Global temps may drop this year, but, alas, world still warming"
Hmm... Just something to think about.
But I have enjoyed our exchange on this and other subjects, and you are a nice guy.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:45 am
12 Apr 2008
Check the data for yourself. They are out there for one and all to see.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:47 am
12 Apr 2008
But enjoy it while it lasts, because it won't be for long.
_
1. We're experiencing a La Nina right now. (The Reverse of an El Nino) That causes cooling.
http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2008/03/2 ...
2. We're currently at the very very bottom of the last ~11 year solar radiation cycle.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif
Take those two temporary(!) factors away, and it's gonna be a lot hotter.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL11121643 ...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle2 ...
(And yes, climate change isn't caused by a single variable, however here are four of the big ones)
Solar Irradiance
Volcanic/Other Airborne Dust
ElNino/LaNina
Greenhouse gases.
http://greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:01 am
12 Apr 2008
Thanks for your weather (`scuse me, climate) forecast.
So maybe 2008 will continue the observed cooling/flat trend of the past seven years. That will make it an eaight-year "blip" in the curve.
And I really hope you are right that it will start warming again (or at least not continue to cool) after 2008.
But what if you are wrong?
Could happen. Happens to the best of guys when they are forecasting the weather (`scuse me, climate).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 2:10 pm
12 Apr 2008
Imagine for a moment that we have been measuring the daily temperature fluctuations inside a greenhouse. Suppose we now have a temperature vs. time graph that spans 5 days, with 100 data points. Imagine that the temperature data forms an up-and-down oscillation, kind of like: VVVVV with 20 data points per down-up cycle (one "V").
Now imagine that we want to look at the trends, but we don't like the full data set for some reason, so we choose to limit ourselves to a tiny subset of this data, say the 10 data points that make up the last upswing of the last temperature oscillation, which rises upward in temperature like a "/".
Why would we do that? If we ignore the preceding 90 data points and just calculate the temperature trend for these final 10 data points, the trend would indicate a half-day temperature increase with an upward slope equal to the angle of the "/". Even though the trend calculation for this data subset is done properly, how much does it tell us about the future temperature in the greenhouse?
If we calculated the linear temperature trend for the entire 100 data points, it would be a flat, horizontal line through the middle of the data, which is obviously a very different trend than the trend for the last 10 data points in isolation.
If we wanted to estimate what the future temperatures would be in the greenhouse, wouldn't our estimate of future temperatures be most accurate if we used the full data set to try to see what the past temperature oscillations looked like, to help us understand what drives the oscillations, and reduce the uncertainty in our estimates of future temperatures in that greenhouse?
And if our predictive abilities would be better when using the full data set for that greenhouse, why would we want to limit our analysis of Earth's surface temperature history to the most recent 10 years of data when we are trying to estimate what our future temperatures might be?
-----
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:37 pm
12 Apr 2008
If you actually think about the question: what has happened over the past ten years, the result is plain to see.
Try to understand my post above entitled "just eyeball it". Forget about what happened before that period, and forget about broad band filtering (statistical) treatments, because they cannot be applied to a ten year period alone.
Remember not to address a direct question by responding on matters which are on different data or context etc.
You need to understand what the issue is and not react as if it were something else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Something that caught my interest in your many wisdoms, are your curious abbreviations, such as:
Sayin'
Why do you do that rather than type saying?
Do you think it saves a byte or two in the ether?
Do you think it is clearer in expression?
Do you think it saves ink if thousands run a print copy to hang on their wall?
Do you think it it reveals your personality?
This is the only thing I found interesting in your posts
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 6:03 pm
12 Apr 2008
Uh-huh...then why, exactly, is it that none of the scientific community "sees" it?
If you are so sure that you're correct then I hereby issue a challenge to ya, Max.
Here is the challenge: send the data, along with your assertions, to a certified climatologist, and see what (s)he makes of it.
If ya need help, I can direct ya to some people who study the subject here at the state technological college. Or ya can just choose a reputable climatologist of your own.
This is a chance for ya to prove yourself, and your assertions correct.
Well, are ya up for the challenge?
Oh, and to answer Black Wallaby...it's just who I am. I guess ya can say it helps reveal my personality, if ya like.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:37 pm
12 Apr 2008
"Yes it's gonna be colder in 2008.
But enjoy it while it lasts, because it won't be for long."
Tell me oracle, who enjoys being cold? ...It's good to know the recent short-term trend does not worsen eh?
And the oracle did further announce in part:
"... and it's gonna be a lot hotter...
(And yes, climate change isn't caused by a single variable, however here are four of the big ones)
Solar Irradiance
Volcanic/Other Airborne Dust
ElNino/LaNina
Greenhouse gases."
Why just four? What about clouds....and? And for example:
Tell me oracle, have you deeply considered why the unusual lack of sunspots parallel with the cold 2008 so-far, why the puzzling reluctant start of cycle 23, why the logical comparisons made with cycle 14, the developing barycentric theory of orbital dynamics of the Sun, the influence of the field reversals and other magnetic stuff and various non EMR emissions from the Sun WRT the Earth's magneto-sphere, and a few other BTW's?
Oh, and why dost thou keep avoiding comment on that 5-year programme at CERN involving over 50 scientists from around the World?
Still, it's good that you can forecast the climate with such confidence, although when you say: "...it's goanna be a lot hotter.", do you actually have a time frame or magnitude for that?
Still, it's reassuring to learn that it is not lizard be colder!
With awe and respect, BobFJ
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:15 pm
12 Apr 2008
Looking at the time of day, might you be from Tasmania?
Max (in Switzerland)is out of circulation right now, but to comment for him:
What you do not seem to understand is the significance of broad width smoothing of long-term data. It cannot be used over a short-term, and if the filter width is 20 years, as is the case with Hadley, then shocking as it may sound, the last ten years have to be derived by some other technique. Both the latter and the selection of filter code and width are actually rather arbitrary, and selected for preferred outcome.
These methods apply to graphical illustration of data in any field of science. It could be say; how many eggs did the frogs in this pond lay each year over the last 100 years per capita. It does not require a frog expert to draw a wiggly line to depict a trend from the raw data. Anyone familiar with data interpretation such as an engineer could do it. You could even argue that someone from an independent discipline is a better party to ensure unbiased interpretation of the raw data.
If we ask the question, what happened over the last ten years, the 20-year Hadley filter cannot be used, and it does NOT require a climatologist to do a simple trend determination of the data. (not what a climatologist hopes the data might mean)
You should perhaps read carefully my recommended link above by a data EXPERT.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:42 pm
12 Apr 2008
Briefly:
The subject is the apparent plateau in the raw data over the past decade and less. The decade starts early in 1998 and ends recently. Max has also looked at 2001 till now etc. The subject does not include consideration of the years before 1998, or even the LIA or MWP. We are discussing what has actually been observed over the past decade, and make no forecast for the future.
THAT IS THE SUBJECT
For more relevant information, please refer:
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...
And the links therein
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:23 am
13 Apr 2008
Hi MNG,
You sure used a lot of nice prose to say absolutely nothing about the observed recent "plateau" in global warming.
Since someone said it would be introducing an "artifact" by starting the most recent decade with the year 1998, I also started the trend with the year 2001 (coincidentally the first year of the 21st century).
No matter how you slice it, it is apparent that the warming trend of the latter part of the 20th century has stopped and flattened out or even reversed itself to a cooling trend over the past 10 years.
These are just observed facts. No fancy prose needed. No "climate expert" needed to rationalize why this has occurred. Just the facts, that's all.
And you have been unable to refute these facts.
The lead article on this thread predicts that this cooling trend will continue through 2008 (whether this is correct or not is anyone's guess).
Believe Black Wallaby has answered your rather strange remark on "tiny data subsets", so there is no point in my repeating it all.
Now to the future.
Who knows what the temperature trends will be going forward (let's say for the next decade)?
I do not. You do not. The IPCC does not. WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud does not. "2,500 climate experts" do not. A whole lineup of supercomputers does not. Check the "Farmers' Almanac". They have the best track record to date.
There is an old farmers' saying in German:
"Wenn der Hahn kräht auf dem Mist
Dann ändert das Wetter, oder es bliebt wie's ist."
(When the rooster crows on the dung heap, the weather will change, or stay as it is.)
I think our discussion on this topic has ended, but it was nice chatting with you.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Grevangelical Posted 4:10 am
13 Apr 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:33 am
13 Apr 2008
Last I checked, Svensmark admitted that IF there is any effect from cosmic rays, that it's so inconsequential that it falls within the margin of error.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:41 am
13 Apr 2008
This graph on the Cryosphere Today web site just hammers that home. Even in a "cool" year the maximum extent of Arctic ice coverage no longer reaches the multi-year median.
That's a lot of open water exposed to 24 hour sunlight during the summer and retaining heat. As we can see it appears to be a multi-year, progressive, process that is also subject to sudden changes that could represent "phase shift" transitions. Since we don't seem to have good predicted models of Arctic sea ice behavior things could get dicey very quickly.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:49 am
13 Apr 2008
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-wa ...
Now certainly, there is the CERN study, and it might yield evidence to the contrary. But frankly it hasn't yet.
So until you have any actual evidence, you don't have any actual evidence to prove your point.
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:40 am
13 Apr 2008
You wrote to Black Wallaby: "Last I checked, Svensmark admitted that IF there is any effect from cosmic rays, that it's so inconsequential that it falls within the margin of error."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm
You got it wrong, Greyfalcon. Better check again.
Nowhere in your linked BBC blurb does it say "Svensmark admitted that IF there is any effect from cosmic rays, that it's so inconsequential that it falls within the margin of error."
Some other guy named Sloan from the University of Lancaster made that claim and Svensmark replied that Sloan "failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds".
Just to clear up an apparent misunderstanding on your part.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:52 am
13 Apr 2008
Svensmark's lab results showed an observed link between cosmic rays and cloud formation. Whether the CLOUD study at CERN will confirm this, is a matter of conjecture at this point.
Critics of Svensmark's theory point out that, while it may have shown fairly good correlation with global temperature in earlier years the link after around 1980 is poor. This is often referred to as the "fatal flaw" in Svensmark's theory.
This argument may be valid, but it raises the question:
Is there an actually observed link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature?
The Hadley Centre has a published record of "monthly globally averaged land and sea surface temperature" that goes back to 1850.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
Actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration only started in 1958.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.htm ...
IPCC estimates based on ice core readings go back to pre-industrial times. These show an estimated gradual increase from around 285 ppm in 1850 to 315 ppm in 1958, when actual measurements started.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
CO2 concentrations have risen steadily over the entire period. The rate of increase has also accelerated slightly over the period, particularly following WWII.
Global temperatures have risen over the period, but a closer look at the record shows that this has been anything but steady.
Between 1850 and around 1860 there was a very slight cooling trend.
This trend reversed to a warming trend for the next 20 years until around 1879 (at +0.196C per decade this period shows the highest decadal rate of increase since records have been taken). There was essentially no increase in CO2 during these "horse and buggy" years.
This was followed by another cooling trend until around 1906 (-0.047C per decade).
Then came another warming trend until around 1940 (+0.161C per decade), followed by a slight cooling trend until around 1976 (-0.02C per decade), during the post-war boom period of rapid increase in CO2
Following this, we had a trend with the second highest decadal rate of increase (+0.175C per decade) from 1976 to around 1998. This trend occurred during a period of rapid CO2 increase and has gotten a lot of attention as evidence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW).
Since the end of the 20th century, this rapid warming trend has stopped. Over the seven-year period since 2001 there has actually been a very slight cooling trend, despite the continued high rate of increase of CO2.
So it appears that last 25 years of the 20th century provide the only observed link between CO2 and temperature.
The immediately preceding period had CO2 increase with cooling.
The immediately ensuing period since the start of the 21st century shows slight cooling with high increase in CO2.
The period from 1860 to 1879 showed the highest rate of temperature increase of all periods measured, with essentially no CO2 increase whatsoever.
In summary, the actually observed data show that there does not appear to be a very "robust" link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature.
Is this the "fatal flaw" in the AGW theory?
Just some food for thought, Greyfalcon.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:10 am
13 Apr 2008
Nowhere in your linked BBC blurb does it say "Svensmark admitted that IF there is any effect from cosmic rays, that it's so inconsequential that it falls within the margin of error."
Perhaps, but it does say this:
"Sloan predicts much bigger effects than we would do, as between the equator and the poles, and after solar eruptions; then, because he doesn't see those big effects, he says our story is wrong, when in fact we have plenty of evidence to support it."
i.e. Svensmark himself admitting that the impact of cosmic rays, if any, is very small.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 8:20 am
13 Apr 2008
Ya keep sayin' that, and yet the consensus amongst the scientific community is the opposite.
I've issued the challenge to you: send the data and your anaylsis to a reputable climatologist to confirm your ideas. Find a reputable climatologist who agrees with, and is willing to back up, your assessment.
Otherwise, without confirmation from an established climatologist, what reason do we have to believe you?
Permalink
elbarto Posted 9:11 am
13 Apr 2008
Given the warming from Feb to March 2008, ie +0.41ºC over one month, the globe is now warming at 4.9ºC per year. Perhaps this means the January "Ice Age" is now over?
Get out your foil hats, deniers, you'll need them to protect your aura from all those "cosmic rays" that are surely driving this warming trend.
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:28 pm
13 Apr 2008
Check the record.
You are smart enough (I hope).
Believe me, you do not need an "established climatologist" to tell you what the record shows.
It is painfully obvious.
Globally averaged land and sea surface temperature according to the Hadley Centre have cooled over the past seven years, i.e. over the period from January 2001 to February 2008.
But, hey, I'm not saying this is part of a 100-year or 1000-year trend. It's just the facts for now.
Got it? Really not that hard to grasp, TP.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:32 pm
13 Apr 2008
"Svensmark himself admitting that the impact of cosmic rays, if any, is very small."
Not really, Greyfalcon. You kina made that one up yourself.
Sorry. You lose.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:40 pm
13 Apr 2008
I sent you some thoughts on the "fatal flaw" of Svensmark's cosmic ray theory versus the AGW theory.
Whaddaya think?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:58 pm
13 Apr 2008
Please address the "fatal flaw" of the AGW theory, Greyfalcon, as I pointed out.
It is every bit as convincing as the "fatal flaw" of Svensmark's theory. Right?
If not, why not?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:24 pm
13 Apr 2008
Come again? Thinking about it:
Melting ice is an endothermic process and that heat has to come from somewhere. While the phase shift has a reaction cost the total energy in the system has to be greater than before the unmelted state.
Just like the old bucket ice cream freezer, as the ice-cream freezes more heat is being added to the system contained within the bucket. The phase change has a price that is not accurately reflected in the frost on the side of the pail.
Surface temperature does not always reflect inherent energy. Isn't that what allows fire walking?
Where's a physicist when you need one.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:25 pm
13 Apr 2008
You need to understand that whilst the Arctic sea ice has reduced in recent times, that in relation to the total global surface area, it is quite a small percentage of the total area. The plateau in global average temperature over the last decade or so cannot be measured by just looking at a small regional area. Also, in your link Cryosphere Today , if you run down to the bottom of the web page and click on the graphs for Antarctica, you may be surprised. You should see that despite the alarmism from people like James Hansen on catastrophic melting in West Antarctica, and on the Peninsula, sea ice is on the increase for the whole of Antarctica. (When averaged) Incidentally, the continent itself is huge, twice the size of the contiguous USA, and other reports show a cooling, opposite to the Arctic.
Additionally, a respected source, NASA JPL, has a different story to what you imply, concerning sea ice loss in recent years in the Arctic, as in this brief extract from: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat- ...
"Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters."
Please enjoy reading it in full: the airflow change pattern started around the turn of the century
Additionally, you wrote in part:
[1] "That's a lot of open water exposed to 24 hour sunlight during the summer and retaining heat. [2] As we can see it appears to be a multi-year, progressive, process that is also subject to sudden changes that could represent "phase shift" transitions. Since we don't seem to have good predicted models of Arctic sea ice behavior things could get dicey very quickly."
RESPONSE [1] You also should know that insolation is much reduced at high latitudes because of the curvature of the Earth. I don't know what the factors are for the sea-ice area, but at latitude 45, between Seattle and Detroit, the insolation per unit area year average is reduced by a factor of 1.414, so figure it out, the sunshine is weak further up there. BTW, it also has to battle through a greater effective depth of atmosphere because of the angle, and ~40% of it is IR. Also, the reflection of sunlight, rather than its absorption, increases the lower the sun is in the sky.
You also make a big thing about the 6-month summer. Well don't forget that there is also a 6-month winter, during which time heat is escaping.
RESPONSE [2] I don't understand this, particularly your: "...sudden changes that could represent "phase shift" transitions."
When ice melts and changes into water, this is known as a phase change. Even though the resulting water can be at the same temperature as the ice momentarily before melting, it requires additional heat to enable this process. (without any change in T) This additional heat is known as latent heat, called that because it is "hidden" or non apparent heat. It is NOT a sudden process. Is your [2] something to do with that? If so I still don't understand what you are trying to say.
BobFJ
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:41 pm
13 Apr 2008
I found your afterthoughts, (penultimate post above), on Thermo' a touch confusing, and internally contradictory. (I think)
Just a couple of things:
a) Here is a paste from an on-line dictionary for the word endothermic:
warm-blooded: maintaining a constant body temperature despite changes in the temperature of the environment
absorbing heat: describes a chemical reaction in which heat is absorbed. See also exothermic
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation.
b) The reason why walking moderately quickly on burning coals does not hurt bare feet is that charcoal is a very poor conductor of heat, and a good insulator. Walk slowly , and you will find they are very hot indeed.
BobFJ
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:03 am
14 Apr 2008
Check the record.
You are smart enough (I hope).
Believe me, you do not need an "established climatologist" to tell you what the record shows.
Okay, if it's as easy as ya say, then an established climatologist would agree with it, right?
Let's go ahead and for the sake of argument, say that I don't "understand" the record, but that I would like a climatologist to explain it to me.
Afterall, if you're so certain you're correct, and it really is that easy, then a climatologist would haveta agree with your assessment, correct?
Unless of course, you're afraid you'll be proven wrong.
So go ahead...the challenge still stands...show me how correct you are by havin' a reputable climatologist confirm your ideas.
If you are right, then there's no harm in havin' an expert check just to be sure, correct?
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:12 am
14 Apr 2008
You wrote: "Surface temperature does not always reflect inherent energy. Isn't that what allows fire walking?
Where's a physicist when you need one."
If you will pardon the expression, I believe someone needs a "physic" here (as in "purge"), rather than a physicist.
IPCC has used the surface temperature record, despite all its "warts" (such as the UHI), uneven coverage, and uncertainties, rather than the tropospheric record as measured by satellites (and to a much smaller extent) by weather balloons.
Tell it to the IPCC, Pangolin.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:29 am
14 Apr 2008
You wrote: "Let's go ahead and for the sake of argument, say that I don't `understand' the record, but that I would like a climatologist to explain it to me."
By all means , TP, if you have problems with simple data sets or how to plot them into Excel and draw trend lines, etc., get someone to help you. Doesn't necessarily need to be a "climatologist" (whazzat?). Any high school math teacher can help you.
Some facts:
Over the last 25 years of the 20th century there was a global warming trend of 0.175C per decade. This trend is referred to by IPCC. On this basis, IPCC predicted a warming of 0.2C per decade for the next 2 decades.
All four temperature records show that there has been a "plateau" in global warming over at least the past seven years (since 2001).
Three of the four records show a cooling trend (Hadley, RSS, UAH), and the fourth (GISS) shows a flat trend.
Hadley: -0.108 deg C per decade
RSS: -0.060 deg C per decade
UAH: -0.004 deg C per decade
GISS: 0.00 deg C per decade
Now TP, these are not opinions. They are observed facts, out there for one and all to see.
Even Dr. Pachauri has said he will look into the causes for this apparent "plateau", so he is not denying the fact that it exists.
Sorry, TP, the facts are the facts, even when they do not directly support the theory.
The lead article here says the WMO believes the rest of this year will continue to be cold. Are they right?
I am not saying that this 7-year slight cooling trend will continue beyond 2008. Who knows what will happen? The "climatologists"? Maybe. Maybe not.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:49 am
14 Apr 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:31 am
14 Apr 2008
Still waiting for some "fatal flaw" discussion rather than observations on "hasty triple reply".
Regards,
Max
Permalink
SKenzie Posted 9:03 am
14 Apr 2008
Of course, the frequent declarations of rationality are good for a laugh too.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 9:10 am
14 Apr 2008
If ya don't wanna go out and find a climatologist of your own to confirm your results, I could always ask him to review and confirm your results.
Would ya like me to do that? After all, I'm sure you'd love to have your ideas confirmed by a reputable climatologist, to prove how correct ya are.
I could probably meet with him some time later this week, probably closer to the weekend.
So, should I give him a call?
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:18 am
14 Apr 2008
You wanted a "climatologist" explanation of the current cooling trend
Here's one:
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
Enjoy.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:15 pm
14 Apr 2008
You apparently think it is strange "how some commenters are knocking themselves out to convince everyone that there has been a plateau in global warming".
Hmmm...
I think it is strange that some commenters are knocking themselves out to convince everyone that there has NOT been a plateau in global warming (when the actually observed record shows that there has been a "plateau").
Whaddaya think?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:59 pm
14 Apr 2008
NASA: warming is causing Greenland ice to melt faster than expected
mongabay.com
February 21, 2008
Warming air temperatures are causing Greenland's ice sheet to melt faster than previously anticipated, reported NASA on Wednesday. Though unlikely, the complete melting of Greenland's ice sheet would raise global sea level by 23 feet.
"The relationship between surface temperature and mass loss lends further credence to earlier work showing rapid response of the ice sheet to surface meltwater," said Dorothy Hall, a senior researcher in Cryospheric Sciences at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and lead author of the study, published in the January issue of the quarterly Journal of Glaciology.
What's causing that? Cooling?
The consensus by peer reviewed scientists as vs. cranks that blog on websites is that there is less total ice in the world this year than the year before on average.
What the hell's melting all that ice? Road salt?
I think it's due to warming or at least recent pirate suppression activity by the world's Navies. It actually doesn't matter what excuse you use when arguing with denialist cranks who don't rely on evidence to support their assumptions.
They have assumed AGW is false and then grab at straws to prop up their assumptions. They've got "turtles all the way down" and if you smack one of their painted turtles out of the way their stack of turtles fabrications decreases not by an atom's width.
You point out ice melt they say the ice didn't melt, then, well yeah, the ice melted but it was melted once before in Eric the Red's time, then they claim that extra ice elsewhere makes up for the melt, until you prove that it doesn't.
Sorry guys but there is simply less ice in the world than there was even 20 years ago by a huge margin. 10,000 year old blocks of ice are breaking free and wandering off by themselves to melt.
But it's not AGW that's causing that?
Is it just me or are these threads full of circular logic by the deniers more than a little bit crazy?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:26 pm
14 Apr 2008
You do know what a climatologist is, yes? Also, please note how the good doctor's "theories" usually end up in opinion and analysis sections, blogs, and forums, rather than in actual news sections and scientific journals.
Oleg's work can't appear in scientific journals because in order to appear in a journal it has to be peer reviewed...and the work has been dismissed by his peers and the scientific community.
For one thing, his claims fail to take into account that the Maunder and the Dalton minima were accompanied by powerful volcanic forcing during their periods of influence.
...also, please note that he makes no reference to the Hadley data whatsoever, so it doesn't have to do with your "findings".
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:32 pm
14 Apr 2008
Hey folks,
We have published records of "globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomalies" (Hadley, GISS).
We have records of the same "anomalies" based on the tropospheric record, as measured by satellites (UAH, RSS). For many people these records are more pertinent than the surface record, for three reasons:
· Greenhouse theory says that warming should start in the troposohere rather than at the surface.
· Tropospheric measurements do not have the urban heat island distortion of the surface record.
· Satellite measurements (which measure the entire land and sea) give a much more comprehensive measurement than the surface measurements, which are relatively spotty, especially over the oceans.
All of these records show that there has been no warming over the past seven (or even ten) years.
Three of the four records show that there has actually been a cooling (Hadley, RSS, UAH), while the fourth record (GISS) shows no warming.
These are the (using an IPCC expression) "irrefutable" (if uncomfortable or inconvenient) facts.
Now there are many rationalizations as to why these facts have been observed. There have been claims that these seven years mean nothing.
But there have been no valid refutations to date of the observed facts.
Max
Permalink
elbarto Posted 3:45 pm
14 Apr 2008
By sheer mind numbing wordmass this has become all about manacker.
Surely it is time to moderate?
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:46 pm
14 Apr 2008
It's so simple; more heat means less ice. Over the course of time the total mass of ice measured globally tells you where the climate trend is.
What's melting all that ice Max? It's not just the Arctic or Antarctica or Greenland it's almost every glacier in the world losing mass.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:38 pm
14 Apr 2008
Probably I would not recommend suppressing either of them. But it is plainly true that they have unhealthily fascinated such excellent members of our community as TasPar and Pangolin.
When "it's turtles all the way down," there does not seem to be much hope in trying to engage them/him/her.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:00 pm
14 Apr 2008
Reason I ask, I 've just scanned through this entire thread to see if there's actually any interesting content emerging from the endless troll dialectic. There's not. But I did spot one little gem.
Manacker, about umpteen posts ago:
By the way, Robco1, if you are going to use fancy Latin words, learn how to spell them correctly. It's "ad nauseum" not "ad nausium".
Just a tip, so you don't look silly next time.
Manacker also has it wrong (surprise!). For the record, the phrase is AD NAUSEAM.
Permalink
Grevangelical Posted 10:53 pm
14 Apr 2008
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 12:47 am
15 Apr 2008
I do find it amazing how much text people can produce without ever actually coming up with anything that makes sense.
Better ignore these two. They have not contributed anything of value since the first time they showed up. You can't argue climate change with people who do not comprehend the basics.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:32 am
15 Apr 2008
The racism skeptics, the warming skeptics, the tobacco skeptics, the torture skeptics all use "turtles" in their arguments. A "turtle" in this context being an elaborately painted and well armored argument held forth as a support for their world views.
The turtle is presented as iron-clad evidence to support their world view until such time as overwhelming evidence smacks it out of the stack. At that point, with no time delay, a different turtle is presented as the iron-clad support of the world view. The now missing argument entirely dismissed as irrelevant.
When people are supporting their right to harm others for their own profit you frequently find "turtles all the way down." Still, I can't help smacking one now and again; just for practice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:42 am
15 Apr 2008
Lots of meaningless blah-blah about "trolls", "turtles", etc., but no rational rebuttal of facts presented.
Just shows that when you do not have any facts, you have to resort to personal attacks, name-calling and emotional outbreaks.
Grow up, folks.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:47 am
15 Apr 2008
This is a shrewd observation.
I'll try very hard not to "overreact".
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:01 am
15 Apr 2008
Name calling, yes.
Flat statements of denial(without evidence), yes.
Semantic arguments (climate vs. weather), yes.
Rebuttal with physical evidence, no.
Tells me what the real story is here, regardless of the nicely worded (but inaccurate) lead article.
Sorry folks.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:23 pm
15 Apr 2008
Milwaukee resident, as he shovels the snow from his driveway: It's Easter and we have to hide the kids' Easter eggs in the snow. What the hell happened to "global warming"?
Wife (an ardent AGW supporter): Silly, this snow is just "weather", not "climate".
Chinese garment worker in Guangdong Province, China, waiting in the first snow in many decades to catch a delayed train back to her native province in the north during Chinese New Year vacation, translated from Mandarin: What is going on here? The Central Committee tells us there is "global warming", not snow, here in Gaungdong Province.
Other stranded passenger, who believes in "global warming": Important difference, please: this snow is just "weather", not "climate".
Iraqi shop-owner, clearing the first snow he has ever seen from the steps leading to his shop (during moderate sniper fire), translated from Arabic: By Allah, I have never seen this white stuff here; don't we have "global warming"? What is going on here?
Wife (an AGW believer): Hassam, dear, this snow is only anomaly of unusually "cold weather"; global warming, on the other hand, is absolutely certain (inshallah) "climate change". Believe me.
Farmer, to his son as he is trying in vain to start his pickup truck in Minnesota: By golly, it's 40 below zero this morning - never ever been so cold here; where's the "global warming" they promised us?,
Son (a college student, who has read and supports IPCC): Relax, Dad this is only cold "weather", but we are actually experiencing warmer "climate".
Greek goat herder to his wife as temperatures fall to an all-time low of minus 18C and snow blankets the grazing field for his shivering goats: Never seen such cold before. Are we not having "global warming"?
Wife (who reads and believes IPCC reports): Kostas, you must understand the difference. What we now see is cold "weather". What we are certain to feel in the future is warm "climate".
Tampa area orange grower: It's below +20 degrees (F) here this morning and tomorrow is supposed to get even colder. My oranges are dying. Where is "global warming" when we really need it?
Son, who is a University of Tampa environmental science major: But Dad you must realize that this current cold snap is just a temporary change in the "weather", while the unequivocal "climate" trend, as confirmed by IPCC climate models, is one of warming.
Etc.
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:18 pm
15 Apr 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/31/155730/362
Quite hilarious!
Amongst the early suckers were:
caniscandida (= Dogfungus, Twice)
MisterNiceGuy
Before, wow, much to my surprise josullivan58 (whom I thought, maybe mistakenly, a touch low in IQ) actually spotted the joke.
No matter, despite her enlightening post, the more well-known suckers kept going abysmally :
Tasermons Partner
biodiversivist
MisterNiceGuy Made an excuse that it was not yet April 1 in his time zone when he made his silly pronouncements. (But should he not go by the facts rather than the date of year?)
It's good to have a chuckle once in a while!!!!!!!
But whom else is it worth debating with?
BobFJ
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:44 pm
15 Apr 2008
Would like to see you chat some more.
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:29 pm
16 Apr 2008
You have not taken a stand on the relative "fatal flaws" of Svensmark's cosmoclimatology hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis.
Much has been written about the former, while far less is reported about the latter.
Can you point out the observed differences between the two, if any?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:59 pm
16 Apr 2008
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...
Are any of you alarmists prepared to define:
'Climatoologist' ?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:15 pm
16 Apr 2008
This verb and noun is defined in the on-line Encarta dictionary as:
troll [trôl]
v (3rd person present singular trolls, present participle trolling, past and past participle trolled)
vti drag baited line through water: to fish by dragging a baited line through water, or from the back of a boat moving slowly
vti troll in one area: to troll a particular area, or for a particular type of fish
vt look for something: to attempt to find something (informal) trolled through the job ads
vi amble along: to walk casually We trolled off to see if we could help.
vti wander around searching for somebody: to wander round a particular area or place, especially in search of a sexual partner (slang)
vti Scotland US roll or cause something to roll: to roll or rotate, or cause something to roll or rotate
vi online fool Internet user into responding: to lure other Internet users into sending responses to carefully designed incorrect statements
vti sing loudly or enthusiastically: to sing something loudly and with vigour, or be sung loudly and with vigour, especially in a round, refrain, or chorus (dated)
n (plural trolls)
activity of dragging baited fishing line: the act or process of fishing by trolling
search made: an attempt to find something (informal) sat down with the newspaper for a troll through the obituaries
online false statement used as Internet lure: a carefully worded but incorrect statement that is designed to lure other Internet users into sending responses (informal)
[14th century. Origin ?]
In Europe, other dictionaries refer to a supernatural being, living in subterranean caves.
Just check that you are not describing yourselves and other fundamentalists up in there somewhere, wont you?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:33 pm
16 Apr 2008
That Max dominates this thread! Re: http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...
Oh really? Well I support Max not only because I agree with him, but he seems to be outnumbered by the following fundamentalists on this thread alone, espousing great heaps of nonsense, and absolutely NO (Zero) contribution to the debate:
Robco1
ViridianSeattle
tico89
MisterNiceGuy
Tasermons Partner
GreyFlcn
Grevangelical
Pangolin
elbarto
SKenzie
caniscandida
spaceshaper
MarkUK
Elbarto, what are you raving-on about?
Do you have any sense of balance?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:01 pm
16 Apr 2008
I bet they'll call you a difficult patient at your local emergency room. Hehey.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:52 pm
16 Apr 2008
The only reason that you did not fail the IQ test above was that you did not participate.
You wrote:
In Austrailia
"What do they call you in Austrailia? Try acting out like you do here in a local bar. Please?
I bet they'll call you a difficult patient at your local emergency room. Hehey."
Well actually, if you made a misspelling of Austria, (twice.... That is a place in liddle ol` Europe), that is not where I live. I live in a place called Australia, alongside New Zealand, just north of Antarctica, which is in the Southern Hemisphere. The Southern Hemisphere is located south of the equator. If you need any more help in understanding, like what is the Equator, do not hesitate to ask me. I'm a really nice guy, trying to be as nice as possible!
But thanks for adding your great wisdom and scientific input to this thread
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:07 am
17 Apr 2008
No spelling bees in your local bar? Try correcting their grammar then. Same effect. I bet you wee picked on a lot as a child? Hehey.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:16 am
17 Apr 2008
As a virtual charity event, could we maybe provide him with the counseling he must not have access to in his community.
Pitch in please. How could he modify his self image to become more likable and maybe even make a friend or two?
So that he no longer has to stalk the internet, waylaying neticzens for emotional spare change, as it were.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:50 am
17 Apr 2008
As a neutral observer and contibutor here, I kinda like the occasional Aussie humor from BW to cut through some of the blog-fog hysteria of the clim-alarmists that post here.
And then again, sometimes he brings (shudder!) FACTS. I know that these may be discomforting to some when they show that the AGW scare is misguided, but, hey fella, that's what this AGW debate (and this and other sites) are all about.
Right?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:15 pm
17 Apr 2008
Funny, but sad really!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:27 pm
17 Apr 2008
You wrote in part the following wisdom:
"What do they call you in Austrailia? Try acting out like you do here in a local bar. Please?
AND:
No spelling bees in your local bar? Try correcting their grammar then. Same effect."
We don't have many internet bars and cafes here nowadays in the outer suburbs. My laptop has this mysterious radio thingy that I use whenever I'm away from home, except in remote mountain areas. Do you have that technology over there?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:40 am
18 Apr 2008
I bet your spare ID, manacker will talk to you about it. Does "he" qualify as a "sock puppet"? A sock puppet is an ID that trolls share to harrass actual neticzens.
I haven't read very much of the threads you have particpated in, but I'm thinking that every instance of virtual wing nuttery and trollish behaviour must be on display.
Now try an internet bet. Have you already done that one? You offer to bet an outrageous amount of money that the particular point you are making will be proven at some future date. Then when no one arguing against you takes the bait, you proceed to ridicule them and their argument. Good luck with that. Hehey.
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:11 am
18 Apr 2008
Quoting your words of wisdom: "A sock puppet is an ID that trolls share to harrass actual neticzens."
So are you an "actual netcitizen" or a "sock puppet" for josullivan58 or Robco1?
Am I an "actual netcitizen" or a "sock puppet for Black Wallaby or jabailo?
Please `splain the difference.
Now on the bet. The bet is being set up off-line (and it is none of your business, thank you). There will be a winner and there will be a loser and only time can tell who will be which.
Are you interested in putting your money where your mouth is? Hehey back to you....
Max
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:59 pm
18 Apr 2008
Yes! Another tactic so common. The puppet accuses others who spot his puppetry of doing what he is in fact doing.
A troll is a troll. Through and through. Only motivated by their troll agenda. It is never about anything else.
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:40 pm
18 Apr 2008
Hi amazingdrx,
Here are some FAQ concerning the current "global warming" scare:
Q: What do politicians like?
A: Shuffling around large sums of public money to enhance their personal power and prestige.
Q: What do "scientists" (outside the private sector) like?
A: Getting large sums of public money in grants to support their work and pay their salaries.
Q: What do politicians need to justify research grants to "scientists"?
A: The specter of a potential disaster if this research work is not done to identify and solve the potential "problem" for society.
Q: What do the media like?
A: Potential disaster stories (i.e. climate hysteria) to sell copy or TV ratings (and earn higher profits).
Q: What do politicians want to achieve with the current climate hysteria?
A: Support by the general public for taxes, etc, that will generate large sums of public money at the taxpayers' expense for them to shuffle around.
Q: Who will pay for this circus?
A: Everyone, especially those at the bottom of the pyramid today. This includes the hundreds of billions in the very poorest regions who will be denied access to electrical power because of overriding "greenhouse gas" global climate considerations.
Q: Who will benefit?
A: Beside the "climatologists" this includes the media, politicians, "low carbon footprint" industries, hedge funds and those individuals plus their corporations that are involved in (and will be earning profits from) carbon trading schemes (such as the Nobel Prize winner, Al Gore).
Q: Why should we fight against this?
A: Because this is a money-making scam for the already wealthy few at the expense of many, which we will all otherwise be forced to finance, and most importantly, because it will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the future climate on this planet.
Hoping this has cleared up some questions related to the current AGW hysteria...
Whaddaya think?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:41 pm
18 Apr 2008
Does the nitiszen, (as he/she would say), amazingdrx, come across any rationalist bloggers that have done this?
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:42 am
19 Apr 2008
Several years ago Danish scientists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen proposed a theory linking global climate with the activity of the sun, via cosmic rays.
Svensmark's subsequent lab results demonstrated an observed link between cosmic rays and cloud formation. Whether the CLOUD study now underway at CERN will confirm this on a larger scale is a matter of conjecture at this point.
Critics of Svensmark's theory point out that, while it may have shown fairly good correlation with global temperature in earlier years the link after around the mid-1980s is poor.
This is often referred to as the "fatal flaw" in Svensmark's theory.
This argument may be valid, but it raises the question:
Is there an actually observed link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature?
The Hadley Centre has a published record of "monthly globally averaged land and sea surface temperature" that goes back to 1850.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ... ...
Actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration only started in 1958.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.htm ... ...
IPCC estimates based on ice core readings go back to pre-industrial times. These show an estimated gradual increase from around 285 ppm in 1850 to 315 ppm in 1958, when actual measurements started. See the IPCC 2007 SPM report:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
CO2 concentrations have risen steadily over the entire period. The rate of increase has accelerated slightly over the period, particularly following WWII.
Global temperatures have risen over the period, but a closer look at the record shows that this has been anything but steady.
Period.........Trend..Years..Change
1860-1879 +0.196 20 +0.39
1879-1906 -0.047 27 -0.13
1906-1940 +0.161 35 +0.56
1940-1976 -0.020 36 -0.07
1976-1998 +0.175 22 +0.39
1998-2008 0.000 10 .0.00
Trend is linear decadal trend in degreesC/decade
Change is linear change over period in degreesC
Over the past 150 years since the record started temperature has increased by around 1.1C.
Between 1850 and around 1860 there was a slight cooling trend.
This trend reversed to a warming trend for the next 20 years until around 1879 (at +0.196C per decade this period shows the highest decadal rate of increase since records have been taken) and represents around 30% of the total warming recorded since 1850. There was essentially no increase in CO2 during these "horse and buggy" years.
This was followed by another cooling trend until around 1906 (-0.047C per decade).
Then came another warming trend until around 1940 (+0.161C per decade), representing around 40% of the total warming recorded since 1850.
This period was followed by a slight cooling trend until around 1976 (-0.02C per decade), during the post-war boom period of rapid increase in CO2
Following this, we had a trend with the second highest decadal rate of increase (+0.175C per decade) from 1976 to around 1998. This trend occurred during a period of rapid CO2 increase and represented 30% of the total warming from 1850 to today. This period has gotten a lot of attention as evidence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW).
Since the end of the 20th century, this rapid warming trend has stopped. Over the ten-year period since 1998 there has actually been a very slight cooling trend, despite the continued high rate of increase of CO2. Starting the trend with the year 2001 rather than the strong El Niño year 1998 shows the same flat to slight cooling trend.
In summary, there were three warming periods that contributed to the overall warming plus two periods of cooling and the most recent "plateau" showing essentially no change.
And it appears that last 25 years of the 20th century provide the only observed link between CO2 and temperature.
The immediately preceding period had CO2 increase with cooling.
The immediately ensuing period since the end of the 20th century shows slight cooling with high increase in CO2.
The late 19th century warming period showed the highest rate of temperature increase of all periods recorded, with essentially no CO2 increase whatsoever.
The early 20th century warming period also showed warming, with relatively small increase in CO2.
In summary, the actually observed data show that there does not appear to be a very "robust" link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature.
IPCC has used the late 20th century warming cycle to demonstrate the anthropogenic cause stating in its AR4 WG1 report Chapter 9 (p.681):
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1- ...
"The simulations also show that it is not possible to reproduce large 20th-century warming without anthropogenic forcing regardless of which solar or volcanic forcing reconstruction is used,... stressing the impact of human activity on the recent warming."
In other words, since no other cause can be identified to explain the observed warming other than anthropogenic forcing (from greenhouse gases), this must be the cause by default.
This assumption is based on the rather weak foundation of greenhouse theory, 25 years of observation, model studies, and conjecture.
Most damaging for this assumption is the fact that no analysis has been made of the two prior warming periods in order to support this suggestion, despite the fact that these periods together count for 70% of the warming observed over the entire record.
Strangely IPCC does not even mention the late 19th century period that showed the highest decadal rate of temperature rise of all periods since measurements started. Nor has an analysis been made to determine the causes for this period of rapid warming. It is obvious that it could not have been caused by increased CO2, as there was no significant increase. Sunspot records show no unusual solar activity that could have been a factor. What, then, were these "unexplained" causes? Why have they not been investigated?
As regards the warming period of the early 20th century, IPCC states (p.691):
"Detection and attribution as well as modelling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming than the recent warming."
Again there are apparently "unexplained" causes resulting in "uncertainty", but, again, no studies have been made to clear up this uncertainty and attempt to understand how large an impact these "unexplained" causes might have had.
Could these same "unexplained" causes have been the principle forcing factor for the late 20th century warming, rather than the assumed "anthropogenic forcing" from greenhouse gases? How can we be sure this is not the case?
Only by making these analyses and clearly identifying that there were no major "unexplained" factors in the two earlier warming periods can one make the claim that AGW is the predominant forcing factor for late 20th century warming
To simply assert that this is so "by default" since no other explanation can be found is no argument at all.
Is this the "fatal flaw" in the AGW theory?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:58 pm
19 Apr 2008
Since Andrew is not famous for responding to questions in the area of his expertise, may I suggest that you Email him direct @
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[22]='\"';l[23]=' 117';l[24]=' 100';l[25]=' 101';l[26]=' 46';l[27]=' 117';l[28]=' 109';l[29]=' 97';l[30]=' 116';l[31]=' 64';l[32]=' 114';l[33]=' 101';l[34]=' 108';l[35]=' 115';l[36]=' 115';l[37]=' 101';l[38]=' 100';l[39]=' 97';l[40]=':';l[41]='o';l[42]='t';l[43]='l';l[44]='i';l[45]='a';l[46]='m';l[47]='\"';l[48]='=';l[49]='f';l[50]='e';l[51]='r';l[52]='h';l[53]='a ';l[54]='
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:22 pm
20 Apr 2008
Thanks for tip.
Unfortunately, Andrew Dessler's track record has shown me that when the discussion gets "dicey" and too close to actual facts he prefers to avoid participation.
He is, undoubtedly, an acknowledged "expert" in his field of climatology, and it would be beneficial for all who are tuned into this thread to have him share his expertise with others that do not have this knowledge in an open debate.
But, since he is also an engaged advocate rather than just an impartial scientist, it has become clear that he is reluctant to engage in debate on the facts, since he may be aware that these will not support his position.
I have had good discussions with Andrew on other climate-related issues in the past, but I seriously doubt that he will take up the challenge to answer this time, because the risk of losing the debate is just too great. The facts are stacked against him.
As we say here in Switzerland, "c'est la vie" (or "so isch es ebbe", depending on where you live).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:04 pm
20 Apr 2008
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:35 am
21 Apr 2008
Hello, hello
Hello, hello
Hello, hello
(just testing the echo down here, somebody just loves these empty spaces)
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:04 am
21 Apr 2008
Correlation between CO2 and temperature
Here is a way to get a good visual look at the correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature.
Take the data below (from the Hadley global temperature record and the atmospheric CO2 record according to Mauna Loa and IPCC) and plot them into Excel with a 2-axis chart.
The correlation will become obvious.
Period..........Dtemp......DCO2
1860-1879...+0.39......2
1879-1906...-0.13......5
1906-1940...+0.56......14
1940-1976...-0.07......25
1976-1998...+0.39......33
1998-2008......0.00......20
Dtemp is linear temperature change over period in degrees C
DCO2 is increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over period in ppmv
Why do we not see this simple chart in any IPCC report?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:09 pm
27 Apr 2008
Permalink
bobclive Posted 4:12 am
26 May 2008
The findings parallel recent research by NASA scientists using satellites to monitor Mexico City, Atlanta and dozens of other growing metropolises around the world. They found that cities tend to have temperatures far warmer than the surrounding landscape, in many cases up to 10 degrees warmer. Often the heat changes the weather itself, causing more storms downwind of cities, the scientists found.
Might this have something to do with population growth in urban areas.
What did the Peterson study find, No significant UHI warming, just 0.004 degrees C, mmm.
By the way, over 90% of the hottest months in the US temperature history occurred prior to 1960, I can see some sort of trend in those figures like CO2 increasing and temperatures remaining flat, that is unless they get Hansonise.
Permalink
bobclive Posted 4:22 am
26 May 2008
Record Monthly High and Low Temperatures in the United States,
HIGH LOW
Jan 1936 1954
Feb *1963 1985
March 1954 1906
April 1898 1945
May 1896 1945
June 1902 1907
July 1913 1911
Aug 1933 1910
Sept 1950 1926
Oct 1917 1917
Nov 1906 1954
Dec 1939 1924
Only about 0.8% of monthly highs after 1960 does not appear to show any substantial AGW warming.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762182.html
Permalink
bobclive Posted 6:12 am
26 May 2008
The urban heat island is caused by the storage of solar energy in the urban fabric during the day and release of this energy into the atmosphere at night. The process of urbanisation and development alters the balance between the energy from the sun used for raising the air temperature (heating process) and that used for evaporation (cooling process), because the cooling effect of vegetated surfaces is replaced by impervious engineered surfaces.
The strength of the urban heat island is measured by the `urban heat island intensity', which describes the maximum difference in temperature between urban and rural locations within a given time period. The highest values of the urban heat island intensity, in the region of 6-8oC, are often reached between about 11 o'clock at night and 3 o'clock in the morning (Figure 2). This is why the urban heat island is often referred to as a nighttime phenomenon. UHI intensities are also greater in summer than winter because of contrasts in the amount of energy received from the sun, which is absorbed by the urban surface during the day and released at night. The urban heat island keeps London warmer in winter - this can be seen in how spring occurs earlier in London and snow settles less often.
Has there been any significant warming since the end of world war2, I think not,the London study shows 6-8 degrees C UHI warming because of population growth and urban development, Tokyo shows similar, so does Sao Paulo, Budapest, shows 3-4 degrees c
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
The total population increase in the 18 years (1967-1984 was 739,591 and the annual mean maximum temperature in the same period became warmer by 1.7 degrees C. The annual mean maximum temperature attained lt`s peak in the year 2000. It is interesting to observe that the urban population was also the highest in that same year.
Hong Kong Urban Heat Island,
After analyzing the data, PolyU researchers found that there was an average temperature difference of 7° to 8°C between urban and rural of areas of Hong Kong in a winter night, and the maximum difference could be as high as 12°C. On a summer night, 0.004 degrees C says Peterson.
http://www.polyu.edu.hk/cpa/polyu/hotnews/details_et.php? ...
These urban city examples are spread widely over the planet, what does Hanson allow, 0.004C, How do you stop Hansonisation, drop the urban stations and use only rural, easy peasy.
Average Global temperature, what average global temperature, global warming what global warming.
Averaged temps across the state of North Carolina,
There has been no long-term trend in the state's annual temperature history since 1895
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/o ...
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/br ...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:45 pm
31 May 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:15 am
01 Jun 2008
Or maybe he just thinks you're too dumb to understand the answers.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:36 am
01 Jun 2008
After all, excruciating though it is sometimes, I usually respond to your nonsemse
Permalink