Comments manacker has made

Andrew denies physical observations

Hey Christophersj and BobFJ,

Been following your exchange.  It appears to me that Andrew Dessler started the ball rolling with an unsubstantiated claim that "Negative climate feedback is as real as the Easter Bunny".

This was all the more astounding, since it came after the physical observations by Spencer et al., which demonstrated a strong negative feedback from clouds, thereby in effect validating Lindzen's earlier "infrared iris" hypothesis.

So it appears that Andrew's tactic was the classical one of a "denier".  When evidence is presented, which goes against the preconceived belief or paradigm, one simply sticks the head in the sand and denies that this evidence exists.

Thomas Kuhn has written about this in his treatise on paradigms.  Physical evidence, which refutes the prevailing paradigm, is either ignored, refuted or (in some cases) not even seen.  This inability to think outside the box of the prevailing paradigm is, unfortunately, a frequently occurring problem with "mainstream consensus scientists", who have a vested interest in keeping the prevailing paradigm alive, and therefore defend it against any new data that may represent a direct challenge to the paradigm.

I believe this is the crux of the problem here, although I have to admit that Andrew's choice of the "Easter Bunny" was cute.

Max
On There is no negative feedback in the climate system posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 51 Responses

Introduction of Peter Martin

Christophersh

Since Peter Martin has been kind enough to write his brief introduction of both Black Wallaby and myself, I'll return the favor, leaving out any opinionated comments.

Peter Marting apparently lives in or near Brisbane.  He is a firm believer in the premise that anthropogenic greenhouse warming is causing and will cause great damage to our planet's environment.

He bases his belief on a few points of data, such as the late 20th century increase in both global temperature and atmospheric CO2 and a recent trend of melting Arctic sea ice, but primarily on the firm belief in the notion that an "overwhelming majority" of scientists (a) support the suggestion of potentially disastrous AGW, and (b) that they cannot possibly be wrong in this assessment.

He occasionally slips into discussions of a more political nature.  These reveal that he supports world socialism and big government intervention as solutions to many of the world's problems today. He has expressed his disdain for former UK PM Thatcher, for example.

He favors massive international governmental mitigation actions to stop the AGW development before it is too late.

He has been known occasionally to become emotional and lose his calm, but hardly ever does he slip into ad hominem attacks on those with whom he debates the issues. I can recall no incidents where he became openly hostile or impolite.

I have never witnessed him telling his debate partners "you are insincere", accusing them of "extremely biased behavior" or calling them "frauds".

His arguments are usually to the point, with only occasional side-tracks. As a result, he keeps his debate partners on their toes.

So, all in all, he is an excellent partner with whom to debate the many unresolved scientific and policy issues surrounding AGW.

You could learn from him, Christophersj, if you really want to make a meaningful contribution to the debate on sites such as this.

Regards,

MaxOn Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 50 Responses

Don't get emotional Christophersj

Our discussion is apparently taking place on two different levels: emotional and rational.

I personally prefer to address the scientific debate surrounding the AGW question rationally with a degree of rational skepticism.

Yes, Christophersj, there is a valid ongoing scientific debate on this subject, i.e. the science on our planet's climate is not "settled", as some would have us believe.

Despite your disclaimer, "What I AM is a rational and thinking human being - sans sociopathic paranoia" you appear to prefer the more emotional approach. Why else would you throw in the totally irrelevant "sans sociopathic paranoia" line? It really has nothing to do with our discussion.

It also appears that you do not want to get into discussing any real substantive issues.

Real science (as opposed to agenda driven pseudoscience) is based on rational skepticism, rather than "group think".

Religious or quasi-religious belief is based on blind acceptance of a dogma, because the Bible (the IPCC, James E. Hansen, the prophets, Al Gore, the oracles, Susan Solomon, the "fortune teller", etc.) said so.

When you make claims on substantive issues, I will challenge those claims if I can see that there is some evidence that they may be false.  And I will do this in a rational manner, not resorting to name calling or emotional outbursts.

But if you just want to throw tantrums, count me out of the discussion.

Regards,

MaxOn Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Quick ocean check for Christophersj

Christophersj

You wrote: "And on ocean acidification, your just out-ranked on every point.  Coal can take us to enough emissions to matter.  Many phytoplankton require calcium building blocks and will crumble under acidification.  Its already started.  Please stop while you are digging yourself a hole."

Let's do a quick check.

The current carbon budget of the earth is not well known although there are estimates. What is the relation between the temperature at the air/water ocean interface and the rate at which carbon dioxide dissolves? What is the relation between the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the air/water ocean interface and the rate at which CO2 dissolves? What is the relation between the water temperature, the CO2 content of the water, and the rate of uptake of CO2 in cellular aquatic plant life? How much of the carbon uptake becomes waste (decay) and how much goes into skeletons (calcium carbonate)?

Let's run through a quickie estimate.

The ocean has a carbon sink estimated at 40,000 billion tons of carbon (GtC)

The atmosphere currently has a carbon sink of 820 GtC (at 385 ppmv CO2 concentration)

All the known and optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves of our planet (coal, oil, gas) represent a carbon sink of 2,029 GtC.  That's all there is.

Adding in another 15% for deforestation, cement production, etc. gets us to a total of 2,334 GtC

If we consume all of this we will release 2,334 GtC (or 8,556 GtCO2 equivalent) into the atmosphere some far distant day in the future.

Let's assume that the higher atmospheric CO2 levels will not result in a higher level of photosynthesis over land (as studies have shown).

Currently between 50 and 60% stays in the atmosphere and the rest is absorbed by the ocean on a net basis. Let's assume it will be 60% in the future, as well.

This means that we will increase the atmospheric carbon by from today's 385 ppmv to an absolute maximum value of 1,042 ppmv when all the world's fossil fuels are gone.

From 1850 to 2008 we had 0.65C warming, of which 0.35C is attributable to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (see earlier post).

This leaves 0.3C warming from all other causes; let's assume this was all due to increased atmospheric CO2.

Using the logarithmic relationship we arrive at additional warming expected from consuming all the fossil fuels on our planet of an additional 1.0C:

ln (385/285) = 0.3008
ln (1042/385) = 0.9958

dT = 0.3 * (0.9958 / 0.3008) = 1.0C

The ocean will absorb the remaining 40% or 3,423 GtCO2 = 923 GtC
The ocean sink will increase from 40,000 GtC to 40,923 GtC or by around 2%

Now to "ocean acidification".  This is a misnomer.  Wikipedia tells us that the surface ocean pH has decreased from 8.179 to 8.104 (i.e. the ocean has become slightly less alkaline) from pre-industrial times to today.  Wiki cites a study showing that this could decrease to around pH 7.949 when atmospheric CO2 levels reach 560 ppmv and pH 7.824 based on IPCC IS92s scenario (atmospheric CO2 = 1,100 ppmv).

As far as the impact of slightly higher CO2 levels on oceanic calcifying organisms is concerned, Wiki cites conflicting studies: some state that this could result in reduced calcification, others show both photosynthesis and calcification increasing. Recent studies examining North Atlantic sediment cores found that calcification of coccoliths increased by 40% since 1740.

As far as other consequences of a slightly less alkaline ocean are concerned, Wiki states, "However, as with calcification, as yet there is not a full understanding of these processes in marine organisms or ecosystems."

Wiki concludes with the statement:
"Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments. This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with moderate (and potentially beneficial) implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean."

I've read several studies on this topic as well, but Wiki gives a pretty good summary.

So you see that there is no conclusive evidence that the slight decrease in upper ocean alkalinity will have any harmful effects, as you postulated.

Hope this helps clear up this point.

Regards,

MaxOn Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Let's clear up Christophersj

Hey Christophersj,

I just answered your "relatively stable climate conditions" post above.

Now let's quickly go through your last rant.

You wrote, "To say, "Climate is continuously changing on a global basis, as it always has and is today." is, by its very nature, a slippery statement meant to diffuse talks of action.

Not at all, Christophersj.  It is simply a statement of fact.  That's all.

Then you added, "Your second answer has a wrong mathematical error somewhere in it.  I dont know what you have left out of your equation.  I'm not a climate scientist."

Nor am I, but I can understand the studies that are out there that tell me the sun caused around half of the observed warming to date, leaving the other half for all other factors (including CO2).  IPCC tells us that their "level of scientific understanding" of "solar forcing" is "low", so I have to accept the many studies out there by solar experts who have a higher "level of scientific understanding" on solar impacts than IPCC.

This means that the warming we can expect from a 2xCO2 scenario (as expected by year 2100) is around 0.7C.  We have seen 0.3C to date, leaving 0.4C from now to year 2100.

It's actually quite simple.

Your next statement that "ocean acidification is NOT complex.  It is 100% provable and attributed to humans" is a bit doubtful.  The ocean is basic (not acidic).  It contains gigantic masses of CO2 absorbing phytoplankton.  The carbon balance of the ocean is extremely complex, and its "carbon sink" is vast.  Humans are not going to do much "damage" here with the limited overall supply of fossil fuels on our planet, regardless of alarmist predictions by some so-called "climate scientists".  Go through the numbers yourself, and you'll see that this is not a problem.

Whether "the community of countries WILL sign in December in Copenhagen" or not is immaterial.  No matter what the politicians of the "community of countries" decide to do, it will not have any impact on our planet's climate. Zilch.

Your last outburst of "keeping the bloggers honest" and "right-winger's silliness" was so off the wall that it does not merit a response.  

As I advised you earlier: "Don't throw a tantrum and make childish statements.  Makes you look silly.  Stick to the facts instead."

Regards,

MaxOn Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Response to Chistophersj

Christophersj  posed a question (5 Feb) to Black Wallaby and me:

"In this thread you are intending to give the impression that no general global climate change is happening at all.  And yet in other instances you concede the warming, but that its not the fault of AGW, but the sun or whatever your flavor is that week.
Which is it?  You cant hold both points of view.  You're just being contrarian for its own sake and jumping into different logic pools when it suits you.  Its like some kind of psychological addiction."

Can't speak for Black Wallaby, but here is my response (just to straighten out your obvious confusion).

Your first statement "In this thread you are intending to give the impression that no general global climate change is happening at all" is incorrect and unfounded.

Climate is continuously changing on a global basis, as it always has and is today.

To your next point, "in other instances you concede the warming, but that its not the fault of AGW, but the sun or whatever your flavor is that week".

The long-term Hadley record shows 0.65C warming from 1850 through 2008.

Several stusies by solar scientists tell us that the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (highest in 11,000 years!) has been responsible for around 0.35C of this total long-term warming.

This leaves 0.3C for anthropogenic warming (or UHI distortion, effect of PDO, ENSO, NAO oscillations, etc.).

Let's assume it was ALL due to AGW.

Using this warming plus the atmospheric CO2 levels as published by IPCC for 1850 and Mauna Loa for 2008, we arrive at a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.7C.

Extrapolating this to the projected 2100 CO2 level, gives us an additional anthropogenic warming of 0.4C from today to year 2100.

Got it?

Then you wrote, "You can't hold both points of view".

As you have just seen, I do not "hold both points of view".

Finally you added, "You're just being contrarian for its own sake and jumping into different logic pools when it suits you.  Its like some kind of psychological addiction."

Aw c'mon.  Don't throw a tantrum and make childish statements.  Makes you look silly.  Stick to the facts instead.

Regards,

MaxOn Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Call off the canaries, Joe

Good ol' Joe Romm (bless his confused heart) warns us "Australia is the canary in the coal mine for climate-driven desertification".

A "global Dust Bowl" is imminent.

Hmmm. Didn't the term "Dust Bowl" originate in the distant pre-AGW 1930s?

But wait a minute!

I've heard this "canary" line before.

Last time it was that the "rapid melting of Arctic sea ice" was the "canary in the coal mine for climate-driven sea level rise". (Or possibly some other horrible future disaster).

Call off the canaries, Joe.  It's all BS.

Max
On Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 4 weeks ago 50 Responses

It's the long term trend, stupid (314159265).

"It's the long term trend, stupid."

Sure is.

Not the "last twenty-four years of the 20th century" (which have been used by IPCC to "prove" AGW).

The long term trend, stupid, starts with the Hadley record in 1850 and ends with December 2008.

This long term trend shows a linear warming of 0.65 over the entire period, stupid.

Solar scientists have told us (in many studies) that the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity was responsible for around 0.35C (average value of several studies).

This leaves 0.3C for all other causes, including UHI, high level of late 20th century ENSO activity, plus anthropogenic warming (primarily from CO2). Can you follow the arithmetic here?

Let's assume this was ALL due to anthropogenic forcing.

Using the atmospheric CO2 levels assumed by IPCC for 1850 and those measured at Mauna Loa for 2008, we arrive at a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.6 to 0.8. This arithmetic is a bit more daunting, but I'll be glad to walk you through it if you're having trouble following.

If we now project that atmospheric CO2 levels will reach twice the 1850 level by year 2100, we can project another 0.4C warming from today until then.

This is what the long-term trend tells us, STUPID.

MaxOn There is no negative feedback in the climate system posted 10 months ago 51 Responses

A graph for 314159265

To make it a bit easier for 314159265 to visualize Ian Jolliffe's statement, here is a graph.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3383/3233586332_484745b123 ...

Jolliffe's "very unlikely" forecast of a complete reversal of 1951-2000 warming by year 2030 is shown as the blue line.

The purple line is a projection based on the continuation of the actual 2001-2008 cooling trend to year 2030. Some solar scientists prefer this projection, but it is probably also unlikely.

The orange line is a somewhat questionable projection by IPCC, whereby the 2001-2008 cooling trend reverses itself drastically from 2008 to 2030 due to AGW.

The red line is an even more unlikely projection by Hadley, whereby the 2001-2008 cooling trend reverses itself even more sharply from 2008 to 2030.

The black dashed line is probably the most likely projection (in my opinion), based on a continuation of the trend from 1951-2000 to year 2030.

But which projection is the right one?

Who knows?  Probably neither IPCC nor Hadley. Probably not Andrew Dessler. Certainly not Tamino or me.  

Only time will tell.

Max
On There is no negative feedback in the climate system posted 10 months ago 51 Responses

314159265 is confused

Sorry 314159265, sounds like you are a bit confused.  Tamino's so-called "debunking of Spencer" is full of glaring errors and omissions.

"Warmer air holds more water vapor" is basically a correct statement, but it should be reworded, more accurately, to "warmer air can hold more water vapor".  IPCC assumes that is does so to maintain constant relative humidity.  Physical observations have shown that this assumption is incorrect and that the IPCC assumptions on positive feedback from water vapor are therefore exaggerated.

"As earth warms there's less ice and snow covering the planet" (leading to a positive surface albedo feedback).  Great theory, but it just hasn't worked out that way in real life.  After a year of low snow cover in 2007 (not quite as low as it was throughout most of the 1980s and 1990s, however) December 2008 Northern Hemisphere snow cover is back above the 1978-2008 average. The December linear trend since 1978 has been an increase of 0.838 million sq.km. (around 2%) per decade..
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_vis.php?ui_yea ...

Arctic sea ice extent has receded (with lots of media hype); Antarctic sea ice extent has grown (with no media coverage).  The latest data from NSIDC show that the global extent is about the same today (December 2008) as it was over the 1979-2000 mean baseline:
December 2008
12.53 sq. km. (Arctic)
12.20 sq. km. (Antarctic)
24.73 sq. km. (Total)

1979-2000 mean
13.40 sq. km. (Arctic)
11.08 sq. km. (Antarctic)
23.48 sq. km. (Total)
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135

According to IPCC, "lapse rate" feedback is negative, reducing the impact of the closely related positive water vapor feedback, not a positive feedback, as falsely assumed by Tamino.

But Tamino's biggest error is that he does not discuss the observed strongly negative feedback from clouds.  This physically observed negative feedback is so strong that it, in effect, cancels out all the other assumed positive feedbacks combined.  Instead of contributing +1.3C to the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity as assumed by IPCC, the physically observed feedback from clouds represents a cooling impact of around -1.5C.  This puts the total 2xCO2 climate sensitivity at around 0.6 to 0.8C, rather than the 3.2C assumed by the IPCC climate models.

Forget Tamino's debunk of Spencer.  It's junk science and hype at its best.

The physical observations of Spencer et al. on cloud feedbacks have shown that the net overall cloud feedback is strongly negative, rather than strongly positive, as assumed by all the IPCC climate models. And Tamino has not been able to "debunk" this.

Regards,

Max
On There is no negative feedback in the climate system posted 10 months, 1 week ago 51 Responses

Note to Black Wallaby

Hi BW

You wrote: "there are a couple of things in Spencer's paper that make me wonder how "global" the negative 6.1 W/m^2°C [forcing] is".

It's true that Spencer's observations only covered the tropics from -20 to +20 degrees latitude.

This region comprises around 40% of the earth's surface area and receives well over half of the total insolation.

The crux of the matter is that IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 8 (p.630) lists an assumed multi-model mean forcing for clouds as +0.69±0.38 W/m^2°C.

On p.633 IPCC informs us that this forcing from clouds would result in an increase of the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of +1.3°C (from + 1.9°C without clouds to +3.2°C with clouds).

So if Spencer's negative forcing from clouds is globally only half (or even one-fourth) the -6.1 W/m^2°C observed over the study area, this still represents a major negative feedback from clouds, that would essentially cancel out the net positive feedbacks from water vapor less lapse rate plus surface albedo, as listed by IPCC.

It is the physically observed "major negative feedback" that Andrew Dessler relegates to the "Easter Bunny".

Regards,

MaxOn There is no negative feedback in the climate system posted 10 months, 1 week ago 51 Responses

More to 314159265 on Feedbacks

BTW the studies by Spencer et al. and Norris demonstrated that "positive feedbacks" from clouds are "as real as the Easter Bunny".On There is no negative feedback in the climate system posted 10 months, 1 week ago 51 Responses

Don't stick your head in the sand, Andrew

Aw c'mon Andrew.

You apparently didn't read Spencer's study showing a strong net negative feedback from clouds, based on actual physical observations (rather than just climate model assumptions).

Or the independent study by Norris, showing essentially the same.

These two studies cleared up IPCC's "largest source of uncertainty", i.e. "cloud feedbacks", as well as Ramanathan's earlier uncertainty whether or not cloud feedbacks are positive or negative.

Don't just stick your head in the sand, Andrew, and hide behind paleoclimate gobbledygook when there are real-time, real-life data out there.

Makes you look like a "climate denier".

Regards,

MaxOn There is no negative feedback in the climate system posted 10 months, 1 week ago 51 Responses

An up-date on Antarctica for Bob Wallace

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/21/an ...On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Note to Pompey Road

I agree that atmospheric pollution, from particulates or whatever unnatural and toxic component, is a bad thing and should be stopped.

CO2 is not pollution.

CO2 is a colorless, odorless naturally occurring trace gas in our atmosphere, which is essential to all life on our planet.

Every time you exhale you are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. The same is true for all animals.

CO2 has no harmful effect whatsoever on human (or other animal) life at the concentrations we see today or can imaging in the future.

If ALL the fossil fuels of our planet (yes, including all the coal) were to be burned and all the CO2 generated were to remain in the atmosphere, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could reach a hypothetical level of around 1100 ppmv, or around 4x the level assumed for "pre-industrial times" of 280 ppmv.

At this level the greenhouse theory tells us we would see another 1C warming above today's temperature. This is supported by the actual warming from CO2 we have experienced from 1850 to today (around 0.3C).

Let's concentrate on REAL pollution problems out there (there certainly are plenty, not to even mention cigarette smoke) and forget this hypothetical problem created by the virtual world of computer models.

Regards,

MaxOn The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Relax Robco1, it's OK...

You seem to be concerned about Antarctica.  You should really calm down.

A September 2007 report states that according the NASA GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August) cooled about 1 degree F since 1957 and the coldest year was 2004.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_ ...

A recent report shows data that support the conclusion that the slight long-term cooling trend has continued through 2008.
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/2008-upd ...

The mean summer temperature is -15 to -35C
The mean winter temperature is -40 to -70C
Not much ice melts at these temperatures
http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/inde ...

As far as the threat of melting Antarctic ice is concerned, a long-term study published in 2006 (based on 10+ years of satellite measurements) has shown that the Antarctic Ice Sheet grew on average over that period.
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/38315t2244r5w3m4 ...

A quote from this study: "Mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica." A net mass growth of 27 Gt/year is reported.

The relatively small Arctic Peninsula (0.8% of Antarctic ice sheet) has warmed, but ice mass has grown, due to increased snowfall, which exceeded the loss of glacial ice to the ocean.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (10.0%) appears to have receded, not due to melting, but due to the net flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, exceeding the mass gain from snowfall; this has apparently occurred even though temperatures have remained stable.

The much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet (89.2%) has cooled and is growing, due to increased snowfall.

IPCC states, "Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall."

Forget all the hype about 6-meter inundations caused by imminent melting or collapsing of the Antarctic ice sheet.  It's just science fiction and hype.

Regards,

MaxOn The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Robco1 the troll appears to be losing it...

Calm down, Robco1.

"every climatologist not in the employ of the fossil fuel industry or a right-wing spin tank taking money from said industry"?

Duh!  You are starting to sound irrational here.

Stick to the topics being discussed and avoid silly judgmental polemics.

Believe me, Robco1.  These outbreaks just make you appear emotionally immature.

Regards,  

MaxOn The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Response to Bob Wallace's last two rambles...

Bob

Your last two posts "bobbles and bits" plus "and a bit more" rambled a bit, so I'll try to cover the points one by one as concisely as possible.

Yes, the total sea ice trend (Arctic plus Antarctic) does appear to be fairly constant, as I wrote.  The Arctic is shrinking (as your NOAA report confirms) and the Antarctic is growing. Both recede in summer and grow back in winter.  As one grows, the other shrinks, and together they represent some 21 to 26 million square km over the year.

The latest posted record (December 2008) shows no global change compared to the 1979-2000 baselines.

Don't mix discussions on floating sea ice (no impact on sea levels) with those of the Antarctic ice sheet.  The last long-term study showed this has grown slightly on average from 1993 to 2003. I would stay away from "what if" future sea level projections of what might happen if it all melted.  IPCC tells us "current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall".

Ozone hole?  Get serious. We are talking about changing our planet's climate.

"Max ignores the principle of `too much of a good thing'."  How much atmospheric CO2  is "too much" for whom, Bob?  On what do you base this suggestion?  Forget the flawed "room full of CO2" analogy or any Hansen 450 ppmv "tipping point" hype. Come with some facts or drop the subject.

You wrote: "I invite Max to not experiment with the rest of us by increasing our greenhouse gases blanket.  We're warm enough now, thank you."  

Who is "experimenting" with whom, Bob?  Who is "the rest of us"?  Who is "warm enough now"?  What is this silly sentence really supposed to mean?

You seem to be of the "Goldilocks" opinion that our "globally and annually averaged" climate is "just right", and that any change would make it no longer "just right".  

Tell me, is it "just right" today (January 2009) or was it "just right" before human greenhouse gas emissions started in the late 18th century?

Did the 0.3C greenhouse warming we have seen from 1850 to the present help make it "just right" today? Or did it cause it to get 0.3C warmer than "just right"?

Will it be less "just right" in year 2100 if it warms another 0.4C on average from today? How do you define "just right"?

I'd suggest that it would be wiser for you to limit your discussion to facts and figures and not get caught up in a bunch of irrelevant side remarks.

Regards,

Max
On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Correction for GreyFalcon

C'mon, don't just make stuff up.  The record is pretty clear.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135

Extent of sea ice as of December 2008:
12.53 compared to 1979-2000 mean of 13.37 (Arctic)
12.20 compared to 1979-2000 mean of 11.08 (Antarctic)
24.73 compared to 1979-2000 mean of 24.45 (Global)

This shows no real change from the 1979-2000 mean globally.

"Thickness" measurements are flat-out guesses based on some spot measurements.  Last winter they told us that the thickness had increased by 10 to 20 cm in the Arctic.  There have been no published estimates for the Antarctic.

Forget it.  Globally the sea ice has remained fairly constant.

MaxOn The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Note to Bob Wallace

Well, yes, it does appear that you did miss my point.

But let's first apply the "hype filter" on your post (thawing permafrost, reduced snow/ice cover, saving the planet for future generations, etc.) and get back on the topic.

[We can discuss all these other points separately.]

The Hadley temperature record tells us that we have seen a linear warming rate of 0.041C per decade from 1850, when the record started, to 2008.  This represents a linear warming of 0.65C over the entire period.

The solar studies indicate that the unusually high level of solar activity contributed 0.35C to this warming, leaving 0.3C for anthropogenic causes (or other, as yet unidentified factors).

Atmospheric CO2 rose from around 280 to 385 ppmv over this period.

From this we can project the warming we can theoretically expect from today until year 2100, assuming that CO2 levels double from the pre-industrial level to 560 ppmv.

This calculated warming turns out to be 0.4C.

You wrote, " A 0.35C change we can live with.  A 6.0C increase will be and end of life as we live it."

It appears that the change of 0.4C we can expect (based on the theoretical anthropogenic warming) is a "change we can live with".  There is no logical reason to assume that this change will be 15 times the theoretical level from greenhouse warming, as observed over the past 150 years.

That was my point.

Max
On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Note to Bob Wallace

Read all of the studies I cited (rather than "cherry-picking" one quote from one study), and you will indeed see that they conclude on average that increased 20th century solar activity (the highest in several thousand years) resulted in 0.35C warming.

This is not 100% of the observed warming (0.65C from 1850 to 2008 according to Hadley), but it represents a bit more than half over the entire period.

Most of the studies also conclude (as did Georgieva et al.) that other factors (anthropogenic, for example) may have caused a significant portion of the warming observed in  "the last decades" of the 20th century.

Max
On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Strong negative feedback

JR should really get "up to date". "Science" is a "moving target" and new data are reported daily.

Back in February 2007 (almost two years ago now), IPCC released its 2007 SPM report, followed by the AR4 report. These were based on data from 2006 and earlier.

Cloud feedbacks were assumed (in all the climate models) to be strongly positive, contributing 1.3C to the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity assumed to be 3.2C.  IPCC did concede at the time that "cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty".

There had been studies expressing doubt on cloud feedbacks, such as the one by Ramanathan et al. that stated "the magnitude as well as the sign of the cloud feedback is uncertain".

Two independent studies (Spencer et al., Norris)based on actual physical observations (rather than hypothetical model assumptions) helped to clear up this "large source of uncertainty" in showing that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative, with a 2xCO2 impact of around -1.0C (rather than a positive feedback, resulting in an impact of +1.3C as assumed by all the IPCC climate models).

Another study on water vapor feedback (Minschwaner + Dessler) shows, again based on actual physical observations, that the IPCC model assumption of "constant relative humidity with warming" is false, and that the positive water vapor feedback as assumed by the IPCC climate models is overstated by at least 0.3C.

Together these two corrections to the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C, as assumed by the IPCC climate models, result in a corrected number of 0.6C, based on actual physical observations.

Another check of this figure can be made by the actual temperature trend from 1850 to 2008, as recorded by Hadley.

This shows a linear warming of 0.65C over the entire period (linear rate of 0.041C per decade).

Several studies by solar scientists tell us that the high level of solar activity (highest in several thousands of years) resulted in natural warming of 0.35C (average value of these studies).

This leaves 0.3C for anthropogenic warming (or UHI effect or high level of El Nino occurences, etc.). But let's assume that the unaccounted 0.3C warming from 1850 to 2008 was really caused by anthropogenic forcing factors.

As IPCC tells us that all other anthropogenic factors other than CO2 essentially cancel one another out, we can assume that the 0.3C warming from 1850 to 2008 was caused by CO2, occuring over a period where CO2 increased from around 285 to 386 ppmv.

Adjusting this to a 2xCO2 scenario, one arrives at 0.7C (very close to the above value based on physically observed feedbacks from clouds and water vapor).

This is the theoretical anthropogenic warming we could expect from 1850 (285 ppmv CO2) to year 2100 (570 ppmv CO2).

As we have already enjoyed about 45% (0.3C) of this theoretical warming (at 385 ppmv CO2), we can expect another 0.4C AGW warming from today to year 2100.

This is certainly nothing to worry about.

The actual physical observations refute the model assumption of a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C.  

Instead they demonstrate that this, in actual fact, is closer to 0.6 to 0.7C, as estimated by Lindzen and Shaviv + Veizer.

Good news for JR!

MaxOn The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

Déjà vu all over again...

Hi Andrew,

You apparently took issue with Morano when you (mis?)quoted him in saying:
"Marc Morano agrees that only experts in climate feedbacks can make judgments on climate".

Quoting Yogi Berra, I sort of got a "déjà vu all over again" feeling when I read these words with your name attached.

As I recall, you used exactly this rather elitist argument around a year ago when you tried to discredit "Inhofe's 400" list.

I agree that it is a silly argument that only "climatologists" can have a credible opinion on the various aspects within the ongoing scientific, economic and political debate surrounding the AGW hypothesis and its potential impact (or lack thereof) on humanity and our planet.

Apparently you feel this way now, as well.

Congratulations!

Regards,

MaxOn Marc Morano agrees that only experts in climate feedbacks can make judgments on climate posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 18 Responses

Note to Ian Forrester

Aw c'mon, Ian.

You're just angry at Roy Spencer for publishing his groundbreaking findings, based on physical observations, rather than just climate model assumptions and hype, which showed that cloud feedbacks are on average strongly negative, rather than strongly positive, as assumed by all he IPCC climate models (admittedly conceding that cloud feedbacks remain the greatest source of uncertainty).

This is annoying to you, because it demonstrates that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is closer to 0.7C than to 3.2C as assumed by the IPCC climate models.

BTW the conclusions of the study by Spencer et al. have also been validated by a completely independent study by Norris, also confirming a strongly negative feedback from clouds.

Rejoice, Ian!

Contrary to the hysterical hype of Hansen or the alarming predictions of IPCC, we are not doomed to die from global warming after all!

Isn't that great news?

MaxOn Marc Morano agrees that only experts in climate feedbacks can make judgments on climate posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 18 Responses

Some IPCC "smoke and mirrors" for Barry

Hi Barry,

For a good laugh check out IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 3 FAQ (p.253).
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1- ...

You'll see a curve showing temperature trend lines.  I've copied the curve for easier viewing below.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/2534926749_f2be35e86f ...

You see that the closer we get to today's date the steeper the temperature curves appear to get over shorter time periods.  This looks like things are getting more alarming and are doing so at an accelerating rate.

In its 2007 SPM report, IPCC alludes to this accelerating trend (p.5) with the sentence: The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years" (0.074°C [0.056°C to 0.092°C] per decade).
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

This is actually a bit of "smoke and mirrors".  In a record with cyclical warming/cooling periods, such as the Hadley global average land and sea surface temperature anomaly, shorter cycles will usually show steeper trend lines than longer cycles, if properly picked.

Using the same Hadley record and the same IPCC "smoke and mirrors" approach, one can show that global warming occurred at a more rapid rate in the early 20th century than later.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3249/2672880098_1ede950b42 ...

One could then modify the IPCC statement as follows: "The linear warming trend over the first 40 years (0.135°C) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years (0.074°C per decade)."

Both analyses are absurd, of course, but this shows how one can get a message across with proper chartmanship and bit of subterfuge.

Just something to think about, Barry.

Regards,

MaxOn 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Reply to madrad

Hi madrad,

Let's go though your long blurb.

"there goes your "cooler decade", 17 of the warmest years happened in the last 20. but what about 2000-2007?"

Don't know who said anything about a "cooler decade".

The fact is that warming has stopped since around 1998 (or, if you prefer, 2001).  

This is a fact.  Look at the data (don't arbitrarily "chop off" the last 6 months (that would be "cherry picking")

"all the "experts" commenting on ICECAP are well established deniers who have links to big oil.  you can match them up"

Yawn... Another "ad hom" attack.  My advice:  stick with factual arguments and skip the "ad homs".  They just make you look silly.

Your long list of organizations that support the IPCC view on AGW is impressive.  But science is not a "consensus" game, so these guys could all be wrong.

We will see in the next few years if the current plateau continues or it even starts to cool how many of these organizations will quietly withdraw their support for the current "consensus" view on AGW.

Fact of the matter is, madrad, it is not getting warmer right now for some reason or another (despite IPCC model predictions of 0.2C per decade warming), and no one knows what is going to happen in the future. Not you.  Not I.  Not Hadley. Not IPCC  Not any of those many institutions you listed.

We'll just have to wait and see.

MaxOn 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Thaw period today

Hi Des Emery,

You say that we are in a thaw period right now.  This may well be true compared to 1944-1976, when we were apparently in a cooling cycle.  As the record from Greenland shows, we were also in a "thaw period" in the 1930s (at 50% more rapid warming than the most recent period and very much lower increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations).

The most recent period shows cooling again, but whether or not this will become a trend is anyone's guess. I sincerely hope not, because we do not need a colder world.

The historical record shows us that we go though multi-decadal warming/cooling cycles with an underlying warming trend of 0.6 to 0.7C per century, and we have been doing this since the record started in 1850 (and we started coming out of the Little Ice Age).

Regards,

MaxOn 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Reply to Des Emery

Hi Des Emery,

You wrote:
"...ice would certainly have had time to re-establish its presence if GW was indeed over.
I believe this evidence is more compelling than any temperature graph analysis to prove that GW is indeed happening, and at an accelerating rate. this is occurring in a global territory, unlike temperatures which are local events influenced by many factors."

Whether or not the ice has "re-established its presence" is a moot point.  Globally seen (Antarctic plus Arctic) it now stands (June 2008) at an extent that is slightly higher than the 1979-2000 average for the month of June:

Arctic
11.44 million sq.km.
0.76 million sq.km. (6.2%) below the 1979-2000 average extent

Antarctic
15.46 million sq.km.
1.0 million sq.km. (6.9%) above the 1979-2000 average extent

Overall the ice has grown by 0.24 million sq.km. (0.9%) above the 1979-2000 average.

This does not "prove that GW is indeed happening" and certainly not that it is happening "at an accelerating rate".

In fact, it does not prove anything about GW, except that overall the sea ice has globally increased slightly from the baseline period of 1979-2000 average to today.

Yes, "temperatures" are "local events influenced by many factors".  I would certainly agree.  

For that reason I also have little faith in a "globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly" as any kind of a meaningful indicator.  

Compounding the problem are the many adjustments, corrections and manipulations that are made to arrive at this indicator (including ex post facto corrections that are made to the historical record), the many demonstrated problems with weather station locations near urban areas, local problems (asphalt parking lots, AC exhausts, buildings, etc.), shutdown of many rural stations (particularly a large number that were shut down in remote high-latitude Siberian locations when the USSR broke up), etc.

But (together with the satellite record that shows a slightly slower rate of increase in the troposphere than the surface record), this is all we have.  

And this admittedly questionable record has not shown an increase in temperature since 1998 after having shown an increase of somewhere between 0.13 and 0.17 degrees C per decade over the 22-year IPCC "poster period" 1976-1998 (linear increase of 0.37C over the period), slight cooling from 1944-1976 and another increase of 0.15 degrees C per decade from 1910-1944 (linear increase of 0.53C over the period).

If one makes the break at the "start of the 21st century" (January 2001) it shows the same flat to slight cooling trend.

The correlation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations looks good for the IPCC "poster period" but rather poor for the other periods.

To your statement: "The picture of the state of the Earth cannot be compartmentalized, but should be seen as a kind of "panorama" of effects.  And the co-incidence of real-time events has to worked into the equations, not just dismissed as "interesting but separate" items."  I would agree.  

It's all part of a bigger picture that may or may not have very much to do with human CO2 emissions.

Regards,

MaxOn 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Some cloud info for qzuckier

Hi qzuckier,

Believe you mentioned "clouds" in your otherwise rambling post of 9 July (7:21 AM).

Yep.  It looks like clouds do have a "feedback" effect, only this is not a "positive" (warming) feedback, as programmed into the GCMs, but rather a strong "negative" (cooling) feedback as confirmed by physical observations.

In August, 2007, Roy Spencer published an article in Geophysical Research Letters outlining this observed cloud feedback.
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf  

The AGW hypotheis postulates a number of positive feedbacks which will accelerate the warming. One of the feedbacks programmed into the GCMs is a positive (warming) feedback from a theoretical increase in high-level, heat trapping clouds.

Spencer's physical observations in the tropics found a strong negative feedback from clouds instead.

This observation gives validation to Richard Lindzen's "infrared iris" hypothesis of climate stabilization. "
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/82/3/pdf/i152 ...

The name "adaptive infrared iris" refers to the mechanism in which the tropical ice cloud cover opens and closes in response to tropical ocean temperatures to allow more heat to escape to space when the oceans are warm and less heat to escape to space when the oceans are relatively cool (much like the iris of an eye which opens and closes in response to varying light levels to try to maintain a constant level falling on the retina). Lindzen et al. proposed that the iris acts as a global thermostat that will keep the earth's temperatures from rising very far even as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases increase.

To give an idea of how strong this "negative feedback" or enhanced cooling mechanism is, "if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Spencer said. "The big question that no one can answer right now is whether this enhanced cooling mechanism applies to global warming."

Spencer has summarized his findings in a more recent update, in which he concludes that the current climate models are projecting exaggerated warming from greenhouse gases by not taking this natural negative feedback into account:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Recent-Evidence-Reduced-S ...

Just some facts on clouds that may be interesting to you.

Regards,

Max
On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Ome sea ice figures for Des Emery

Hi Des Emery,

Checked for some figures on Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SOLSTICE_SEA_ICE_UPDATE.p ...

Most recent record of sea ice (June 2008) shows:
·    Arctic sea ice extent is 11.44 million sq km; this is 0.76 million square km below the 1979-2000 baseline mean for June
·    Antarctic sea ice extent is 15.5 million sq km; this is 1.0 million square km above the 1979-2000 baseline mean for June

So in total sea ice extent has grown slightly as compared to the 1979-2000 baseline mean.

Regards,

Max
On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Bye, Barry

Hi Barry,

I'm going to have to say it as it is: you are totally confused and this`exchange with you is getting repetitive to the point of being boring.

All of your waffling on when a trend was started is irrelevant.  Get it through your head.  It has stopped warming since 1998.

Now Black Wallaby may explain to you how after a peak high year we have had a couple of lower than average years. This appears to have happened in 1999 and 2000.

But the main point is that the record shows that there has been no warming for the past 10 years.

Is this the start of a new long-term trend? Who knows?  You don't.  I don't.  Black Wallaby does not.  Even the "gurus" at Hadley do not.

Remember that the last warming trend only lasted 22 years (1976-1998), so 10 years is already a significant period of time.

Face it, Barry.  As the lead article here stated back in November 2006, "Global warming stopped in 1998".  The 1-1/2 years since this site was opened have only confirmed this even more strongly.  The past 6 months since the start of solar cycle 24 have provided even stronger confirmation of this fact:

"GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED IN 1998"

Got it?  Is there some part of that which you are unable to grasp?

We are wasting time in this discussion.

Learn some basic skills (like Excel) and check things out for yourself.

End of our discussion.

MaxOn 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Include all the data, Barry

Hi Barry,

You wrote: "Certainly. You have selected a different time series; 2001 - May 2008.

Please explain why you have chosen this period."

Because it is the most recent time period for which we have data.  

To exclude the last 5 months of data in establishing the most recent trend would be silly, wouldn't it?

We are trying to determine what is going on now, so we have to include all the recent data.

Does this not make sense to you?

Regards,

MaxOn 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Let's look at the whole record, Barry

Hi Barry,

Looks like the Hadley assessment ignores the last 5 months of data (January through May 2008).

My analysis does not.

Can this be the cause for the discrepancy?

Who knows?

It would be foolish to ignore the last 5 months of data, so I cannot imaging that an updated Hadley analysis would do something so silly.  Can you?

Must be an older (and now outdated) analysis.

Regards,

Max
On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Excel test for Barry

Hi Barry,

Once you have mastered Excel, here is a test for you.

Download the monthly Hadley global average land and sea surface temperature anomaly figures as they are published, starting with January 2001 and ending with May 2008.

Plot them into Excel.

Once you have plotted them, draw the linear regression trend line and under "options" click "display equation" and "display R squre value".  Both will appear on your curve.

From the equation you will see a function that looks like: y = b*x + a

b is the linear trend (this time in months, so you have to multiply by 120 to get a trend line per decade).  This will tell you what the linear trend has been from 2001 to today.

You can then compare this with any trend that anyone else has either predicted or claimed for that period.

Let me know what you find out once you have gotten that far, Barry. (I already know the answer, because I've already done the steps outlined above.)

This will help you in being more rationally objective and in being to make up your own mind on what is going on out there, despite all the hype.

Regards,

MaxOn 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Facts for Barry

Hi Barry,

Let's cut the crap (as they say) and get down to the basics of our discussion.

The recorded facts show that it has not warmed from 2001 to 2008 despite record human emissions of CO2.

The same is also true for the period 1998-2008, but let us ignore that for now.

In fact, three of four records (UAH, Hadley, RSS) show it has actually cooled since 2001.

The third record (GISS) shows it has been flat.

Can you please confirm to me that you understand and accept this?

If you do not accept the recorded facts, why not?

Please avoid long-winded waffling and stick to the facts.

Regards,

MaxOn 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

some more funny numbers for greyfalcon

Hi Greyfalcon,

Nice to see you back.

The RealClimate link to "correcting for the ENSO signal" is a real "hoot"!  Cool.

Just did the same sort of look-see for "correcting for the CO2 signal".

Start of 1998, CO2 was 363 ppmv
End of 2007, CO2 was 383 ppmv

Ratio, End/Start, = 1.0551

ln (1.0551) = 0.5363

5.35 * 0.5363 = 0.2869

(using IPCC figures for RF per Myhe et al)

Stefan-Boltzmann = 5.4273

Temperature rise due to added CO2 = 0.2869 / 5.4273 = 0.0529C

So by cutting out 0.0529C over the 10-year period (on a year by year basis, of course) we can "correct the record for the CO2 signal".

Trouble is, there was no increase in temperature over the period.  Hmmm...

Just goes to show what you can do by jiggling numbers around.

Regards,

Max
On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Hadley record

Hi Barry,

You are starting to ramble here, Barry. Believe we have discussed this issue to death.

The Hadley record is what it is.  It is available to the public.  Anyone who is so inclined can download the data directly.  It is very straightforward.

The global average land and sea surface anomaly as currently published for the period 1901-2000 shows a linear increase of 0.65C over the period.  This is not an "interpretation" of the record.  It is the mathematical linear trend of the published record. Excel makes it easy to establish this trend line and equation without the drudgery of doing this manually.

The record apparently gets "corrected" or "adjusted" after the fact from time to time.

This is (according to you quoting a Jones 2001 study, I believe) what happened to the 1901-2000 record some time after IPCC published the TAR.

The net result of this was that the linear warming over the entire period (1901-2000) changed from 0.6C (as was reported in TAR) to a linear warming of 0.65C in the current record.

I cannot vouch for the earlier 0.6C figure but I can vouch for the current 0.65C figure (because that is what the figures show).

Now to your statement:

"Surely you can understand that it is entirely reasonable for me to trust a reputable institution (Hadley) at least as equally as an anonymous internet poster (you). Until I can do the math, this is the fairest position to take. If I simply swallowed what you said hook line and sinker, without the skill to verify, I wouldn't be a very good skeptic, would I?

You are making the firm assertions here, not I. I am considering your points pending my own education on the matter. I can't think of a better way to go about it. You appear to want me to believe, and are impatient because I don't have complete, unquestioning faith in your abilities. Surely you're not asking me to take what you say on faith? Isn't that what 'alarmists' do regarding the IPCC?"

Barry, I have no notion what you are trying to say here, but you are free to believe anything you want to.

The record is the record.  That's all.  

Take an Excel course and you'll be able to download the raw data and draw your own linear trend line and conclusions.

Regards,

MaxOn 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Message for Barry Schwarz

Hi Barry,

Thanks for Hadley data.  This is same yearly data I have (and have used for the long term trends).

For the most recent plateau I used monthly data, since these capture what has been happening since late 2007.

You wrote: "Do you by any chance have a link to or copy of the data sets that Hadley used in 2000/2001? That should settle the matter of whether TAR screwed up, if the Jones 2001 study and the October 2001 Hadley report corroborating the TAR figure don't suffice for you."

No, I have not checked this out.  It's not really a matter of "whether TAR screwed up" or not.  I can accept that Hadley made some "ex post facto" adjustments to their 1901-2000 record after TAR was published, if that is what the Jones 2001 study shows.

So IPCC did not "screw up" in TAR.

But IPCC lied in AR4 when it insinuated (with its word "THEREFORE") that the increase of 0.14C, which resulted from the shift from 1901-2000 (TAR) to 1906-2005 (AR4), came as a result of rapid warming from 2000-2005.

In actual fact the apparent +0.14C increase came from:
·    Correcting an error of +0.05C in the Hadley record (1901-2000)
·    +0.09C from replacing a sharp cooling trend over the period 1901-1905 with a slight warming trend over the period 2001-2005

But we've gone over that already.

Good that you are getting Excel so you can go to the published source data directly.  It is really the best way to cut through all the hype out there.

Regards,

MaxOn 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 5 months ago 170 Responses

Some answers for Barry

Hi Barry,

Thanks for long post.  Let's go through your queries / statements one by one.

"I agree that the language in the SPM bit you cited is questionable."  Yeah, Barry, it is "questionable".  In fact it is downright dishonest.  It insinuates one thing (rapid warming 2000-2005) when this is not happening. Unfortunately, there are other examples where IPCC has used this approach.

"In 2001, Hadley's trend for the 20th Century stood at 0.6C. I've corroborated that from the source study, and also from a Hadley newsletter, both from 2001. The TAR stated the trend as Hadley had put it then. The methodology used to arrive at that figure is probably a bit more complicated than whatever you're doing in Excel. Check the study, and read here on Linear regression."

Actually, Barry, that is exactly what Hadley (and IPCC) do in order to calculate a linear trend. It is also exactly what I did.  Whether one does this manually (I've done these in the past before we had the good programs of today) or by using Excel, the answer is the same.  You end up with an equation that takes the form: y = b * x + a where y = temperature anomaly, x = year and a is a constant equal to y at year 0 or start of graph. So Hadley's approach to linear regression is not "a bit more complicated than whatever you're doing in Excel".  It is exactly the same, Barry. And it results in exactly the same answer.

"I have good cause to question your methodology. You say there has been a flat trend in the last 10 years. Hadley says the trend has been 0.1C. Check this update from Hadley."

The Hadley statement in the cited reference states: "A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade."  This (like the IPCC AR4 statement we analyzed earlier) is a misleading statement, Barry.  No mention is made of which type of "simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the last decade" is being referred to. It is certainly not a linear regression analysis (the normally accepted method of establishing trends).

If we download and plot the last 120 months from the Hadley monthly record and plot these, the Hadley record shows there has been a flat linear trend in the last 10 years.

Now, as I pointed out to you earlier, there are some people who object to starting the most recent linear trend with the all-time record ENSO year 1998, since doing this would "introduce an artifact".  So I have also taken the Hadley monthly record starting with January 2001 (start of the 21st century) and plotted it to today (April 2008).

Both graphs are shown in the attachment.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/2591260894_011a1a6c9c ...

The 2001-2008 trend shows a bit more cooling than the trend starting in 1998 (despite the record ENSO year).

Linear trend = -0.084C per decade
Or -0.07C over 7+ year period

As you can see, Barry, this is not a linear trend of +0.1C (warming) per decade, no matter what the Hadley "blurb" states. In fact, it is (starting with 2001) a linear cooling of almost -0.1C per decade!

Sometimes it pays to go back to the source data, Barry, and draw your own conclusions, rather than relying on someone else's interpretation of what is going on out there.

Hope this helps clear this up.

Regards,

MaxOn 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 5 months ago 170 Responses

Some facts on Arctic sea ice

Arctic sea ice extent for May 2008 was 13.18 million square kilometers, reaching the same level as in May 1989.

This is 2.5% below the baseline level (1979-2000 mean May level of 13.6 million square kilometers) and around 4.5% above the record May low reached in May 2004

The linear average rate of decline is 3.0%/decade (over the 30-year period since measurements have started).  If the decline continues at this rate, it will take 330 years for the entire Arctic sea ice to disappear.

The most recent decline has however not continued at the 3.0%/decade rate, since the May 2008 extent is back to the May 1989 extent (i.e. zero net decline in 19 years).

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.pn ...
On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 5 months ago 159 Responses

Bye Barry

Hi Barry,

You're right.  This exchange is getting repetitive.

You wrote: "I asked you who made those graphs, and for some information on the methodology used.

Who made the graphs? Who did the trend analysis? What was the method used?"

I will repeat what I told you earlier:

I simply downloaded the raw data as published by Hadley (source cited) into Excel, plotted the graph and put in a linear trend line, and calculated the equation for the decadal trend.  All part of the Excel software.  No black magic.  No voodoo.  No "levelling".  No "adjusting".  No "averaging". No "interpretation" of the data by any "scientist" or "computer nerd" who may be wanting to convey a hidden message.  Just the plain old unvarnished facts.  That's all.

Shows a flat trend from 1998 to today and a slight cooling trend from 2001 to today.

And it shows 1901-2000 linear increase of 0.65C, as I told you earlier.

Hope that clears it up for you.

It's really quite basic.

Regards,

Max
On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 5 months ago 170 Responses

Helping Barry understand the facts

Hi Barry,

You wrote:

"I could not find a reference at the UK Met office for the 1901 - 2000 series used in TAR having a warming trend of 0.65C, per your advice to check it. I went to the source study Hadley used at the time for the period (Jones et al 2001 - cited in TAR), where I found this;
The 20th century experienced the strongest warming trend of the millennium (about 0.6C per century).
I could find no reference to 0.65 for that period (1901 - 2000) from Hadley or anywhere else. Could you please provide a clearly referenced cite re Hadley 1901 - 2000 temperature trend of 0.65C to corroborate your claim that IPCC got it wrong?"

Some advice, Barry: Download the actual Hadley data into Excel, as I did.  Then draw a linear trend line, as I did.  You will see this on the curve of Hadley data that I provided. It shows a linear trend of 0.65C over the period 1901-2000, which IPCC in the TAR (and possibly Jones et al) rounded down to 0.6C.  No big deal, Barry.

It is very simple and basic, if you have basic Excel skills.  If not, get some help from someone who does.

The point was that IPCC SPM 2007 insinuated with the use of the word "therefore" that the increase from 0.6C to 0.74C which resulted from the five-year shift was a result of the increased warming trend at the end of the period (2001-2005) rather that from eliminating a cooling trend from 1901-1905 from the record (which was the actual cause for the increase).  Did you understand that, or is this too complex for you?

Try to use your head a bit, Barry.

Regards,

MaxOn 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 5 months ago 170 Responses

GIGO predictions from Christophersj

Hohum!

Christophersj posts another absurd "prediction" by noaa nerds concerning horrible droughts and floods we are already "beginning to see" (?) and will surely see increasingly in the future, because of human CO2 emissions, all based on IPCC reports.

GIGO projections intended to arouse alarm and support for carbon taxes or cap and trade scams.

That's what it is, Christophersj.

Bring facts, not garbage.

Max
On Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods posted 1 year, 5 months ago 120 Responses

Polar Bear "predictions" for TP

Hey TP,

Believe you posted this rubbish: "In the meantime, here's a graphic summary of polar bear population predictions from the DOI:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Polar_ ..."

Polar bear population "predictions"?

What a bunch of garbage.

Polar bear populations have increased over the past two decades.

Stck with facts, TP.  Not some group of idiots' GIGO "predictions".

MaxOn Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 5 months ago 159 Responses

Message for josullivan

Hi Josullivan,

Nice to see you back.

"SourceWatch (formerly Disinfopedia), is an internet site which is a "collaborative project" of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). It was created by the CMD's research director, Sheldon Rampton. According to the project's website, it "aims to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests."

"The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a nonprofit American-based media research group founded in 1993 by environmentalist writer and political activist John Stauber."

Yikes!

Do you want to believe what these guys say?

You must be kidding, josullivan.

Max
On U.S. federal report details climate change's impact on weather extremes posted 1 year, 5 months ago 29 Responses

Message for Christophersj

Hi Chritophersj,

Here's a "playback" for you:
"why not play a more positive role and be a skeptic around the extremely fuzzy edges of our understanding of the issue rather than a fool, swallowing the whole story as is?"

Regards,

Max
On U.S. federal report details climate change's impact on weather extremes posted 1 year, 5 months ago 29 Responses

Recent decline in extreme weather events

Catman asked (21 June) "I've been wondering if anyone has been keeping track of these climate extreme events for at least 20 years but never heard a word about it until this week."

Yeah.  There is an excellent summary out there that goes back even further.  It shows that there has been a dramatic decrease in extreme weather events recently compared to earlier times, despite all the model projections to the contrary (pp.49-50).
http://www.globalwarming.org/files/report_20.pdf

Of course, it was published before the recent cold period starting last winter that brought snow to southern China, the Middle East, etc., extreme cold to Canada, plus strings of tornadoes to the US Midwest and floods on the Mississippi in its wake.  

And of course the "model guys" aren't going to admit this.

Max
On U.S. federal report details climate change's impact on weather extremes posted 1 year, 5 months ago 29 Responses

Reply to barry schwarz

Hi Barry,

Thanks for you long post.  I'll try going through it point by point.

First you state, "I often find that values attributed to the IPCC are at odds with what it actually says."

This checks with my experience, as well, in both directions, as a matter of fact.

But I have also found that those who want to "believe" in the IPCC message often tend to overlook errors, omissions, exaggerations or outright inconsistencies in the IPCC reports, rather that to identify and challenge these, as a rational skeptic should do in following the scientific process.

To your next point.

In the TAR (2001) IPCC made reference to 20th century warming, which it defined as the period 1901-2000 (i.e. the "20th century, as we know it). It referred to the Hadley surface temperature anomaly record in saying that this showed a linear warming of 0.6C over the century.  Now, if one actually checks the linear increase over the period 1901-2000 according to the Hadley record, one sees that this was actually 0.65C, rather than 0.6C as reported by IPCC.  A minor error.

Now to the latest IPCC SPM 2007 report.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

You will note that IPCC (p.5) now states:
"Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).  The up-dated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C [0.56°C to 0.92°C] is THEREFORE" [caps. by me] "larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 200 given in the TAR of 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C].  The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years."  

Now, by the use of the word "therefore" (which I capitalized for emphasis), IPCC is conveying the impression that the 100-year increase of 0.14°C, from 0.6°C to 0.74°C (which should actually have been an increase of 0.09°C, from 0.65°C to 0.74°C) was caused by adding years 2001-2005 with rapid warming).

A detailed look at the Hadley record shows that this is not true.

The increase of 0.09°C over the 100-year period (not 0.14°C  as erroneously reported by IPCC) came from removing a cooling trend from 1901-1906, and NOT from adding a period of rapid warming from 2001-2006, as suggested by IPCC by inserting the word "THEREFORE".  In fact, the linear trend over the period 2001-2006 was essentially "flat".

If you would like to see the graphs of the Hadley record confirming all of what I have said above, please let me know.  I will post them separately since they sometimes cause problems with the spam filter on this site if too many are posted together.

Now to your point: "I note also that the IPCC averages from the 3 main instrumental temperature records, not just Hadley."

This is not correct.  If you take the time to download the Hadley record as is it reported, you will see that it is exactly the same as the IPCC record over the entire 20th century.  Other records are slightly different and no others go back to 1850.  But this is a minor point. The "odd-man-out" record (especially in the post 1980 period) is the GISS, managed by James E. Hansen.  With Hansen's shift from "objective scientist" to "AGW political activist" plus the recent disclosures of errors in the USA GISS record, I have a bit more faith in Hadley than GISS today.  The satellite records (UAH, RSS) also check more closely with Hadley trends than they do with GISS.

Now back to your: "I often find that values attributed to the IPCC are at odds with what it actually says."

We have seen from the above example that "what it actually says" must be expanded to include "what it actually implies by saying what it says".  By adding the word "THEREFORE" the clear implication is something totally different from the actual facts.

But there is also the very important part of "what it doesn't say".

A look at the Hadley record (or any other record) shows that temperature has gone through three periods of rapid warming between 1850 to 2005 with three periods of slight cooling in between and the current plateau since 1998, with an underlying linear trend of warming over the entire period.

This is sort of a tilted sine curve.  Now anyone who thinks about this just a little bit can see that be properly picking shorter cycles within this overall period can demonstrate that these shorter cycles nave a steeper linear slope than the longer cycle (that incorporates more than just one sine curve).

When IPCC tells us (see quote above) that the linear trend of the past 50 years (1956-2005) is steeper than that of the full 100 years (1906-2005) it is doing exactly this.

One could do the same in reverse (a reverse "cherry pick") by saying the linear trend from 1910 to 1944 was steeper than the linear trend from 1910 to 2005, thereby insinuating that warming has slowed down over the century.  This would be as misleading as the IPCC statement hinting at the opposite conclusion.

Again I can send you curves of all this if you are interested.  But I will just attach one curve from IPCC AR4 Chapter 3 FAQ 3.1 Figure 1, which is an extreme example of this "smoke and mirrors" approach.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/2534926749_f2be35e86f ...

Can you see the implication in this curve that things are getting worse as we move along in the 20th century?  It is clearly there (if only implicitly stated).  But if we start at the front of the overall curve and make linear trend lines of ever increasing increments always starting from the front, we will see exactly the opposite trend.

This would be just as misleading as the IPCC presentation, of course.

Now you get into something a bit more personal, and I don't know if you are addressing it to Black Wallaby or to me:

"You both present them [curves of Hadley data?] as if they're authoritative. Can you understand that it's hard to give them credence?
You've stated upthread that you use IPCC trend methodology. If I assume this is the case with the graphs you have referenced, how am I to reconcile the first 25 or 50 year higher trend with this;
"The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.07°C ± 0.02°C per decade)."
Either you, your source, or the IPCC is in error. I don't have the skills to do any analysis to see for myself whether this
Obviously, this analysis is just as phoney as the one made by IPCC
is true. But I think it's more reasonable to trust the IPCC trends over anonymous graphs, and not reasonable to credit claims that are demonstrably at odds with the source referenced (IPCC - but I'll wait for direction from you re IPCC statements that match your assertions)."

Believe I have answered the "last 50 years is almost double the last 100 years" question above.  It is not at all inconsistent with "the first 25 (or 50) year is higher that the entire 100 years". Shorter periods picked out of a long-term sine curve (if properly selected) will always show steeper linear trends than the long-term curve.  Just look at the IPCC curve I linked above.

As to the source of data, I believe in all of the curves I have linked I have shown clearly where the data have come from. If you have any specific questions, please advise, but do not come with "but I think it's more reasonable to trust the IPCC trends over anonymous graphs, and not reasonable to credit claims that are demonstrably at odds with the source referenced (IPCC - but I'll wait for direction from you re IPCC statements that match your assertions)", since this smacks of accusatory BS.

I have made no "claims that are demonstrably at odds with the source referenced".  If you think that I have, please be a bit more specific, so I can clear up your obvious confusion on this point.

I know you WANT to believe the IPCC claims, so it is reasonable to assume that you will automatically think that it is more reasonable to trust IPCC trends over someone's rationally critical appraisal of these IPCC claims, even if the critical appraisal is backed up by the same source data used by IPCC.  But this is all philosophical conjecture.  If you have specific points where you want more backup data, please state specifically what there are rather than just making "broad brush" disparaging remarks.  OK?

Hoping to have answered most of your questions and looking forward to hearing back from you with something a bit more specific on those you feel are still unanswered.

Best regard,

Max

PS  Black Wallaby may want to respond to those parts of your post that may have been addressed at him rather than me.

PPS I'll get back to you on your erroneous belief (against the recorded and published temperature records) that "the past 10 years have shown warming".  It's just not so, Barry and even the IPCC Chairman, Pachauri has publicly stated that he is aware of this "plateau".On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 5 months ago 170 Responses

Temperature trend lines for Barry Schwarz

Hi Barry,

You asked: "Please show in detail how you arrived at the cooling trend line. What's your math?"

It is precisely the same "math" used by IPCC in AR4 or SPM 2007 in arriving at a 0.74C linear temperature increase over the 100-year period 1906-2005, or the "math" used by IPCC when they state that the "linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13C [0.10C to ).16C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years".

Take the data as observed and published (without any smooting, adjusting or averaging) and draw a linear trend line.

That's all, Barry.  Just observed facts and the same trend analysis used by IPCC.

Now I'll admit that 100 years tells us more than just a 10-year trend (even a "20th century" that has been shifted by IPCC in somewhat "cherry-picked" fashion in AR4 from 1901-2000 with a linear increase of 0.65C per Hadley to 1906-2005 with a linear increase of 0.74C - by replacing a 1901-1905 cooling trend with a 2001-2005 essentially "flat" trend and somewhat naughtily insinuating with the word "therefore" that this apparent increase was due to adding in "end of the record" warming, rather than by cutting out "start of the record cooling").

It also tells us more than IPCC's higher "trend over the last 50 years".

The 30+ year 1910-1944 period that showed a linear trend of +0.53C (with little increase in CO2) probably tells us about the same as the 30+ year 1944-1976 trend of slight cooling (with significantly more increase in CO2) and a little more the shorter 20+ year 1976-1998 linear trand of +0.37C (with a much higher increase in CO2), but together with the most recent 10-year (or, if you prefer 7-year) plateau, they all paint a picture.

And this picture raises serious doubts about CO2 (with assumed positive feedbacks) causing a "climate sensitivity at 2xCO2 of 3K, which is the whole rationale for the alarming AGW suggestion.

Regards,

Max
On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 5 months ago 170 Responses

Link got garbled

Link should be:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070109/20 ...On Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods posted 1 year, 5 months ago 120 Responses

Message to Brute (part 2)

Here's a quote from Roy Spencer that may well be prophetic:

"If tomorrow the theory of manmade global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests. About the only thing that might cause global warming hysteria to end will be a prolonged period of cooling... or at least, very little warming. We have now had at least six years without warming, and no one really knows what the future will bring. And if warming does indeed end, I predict that there will be no announcement from the scientific community that they were wrong. There will simply be silence." --University of Alabama climate scientist Roy Spencer

Regards,

MaxOn Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods posted 1 year, 5 months ago 120 Responses

Global warming stopped in 1998?

Hi Black Wallaby,

Looks like there are still a few folks out there that have a hard time accepting observed facts (ex. Hadley surface temperature anomaly record).

These facts show that it has warmed over the past 150 years in several multidecadal warming/cooling cycles and an underlying warming trend of 0.6 to 0.7C per century.

Notable warming cycles were from 1858-1879, 1910-1944, 1976-1998.  In between these we had cycles of slight cooling plus the most recent plateau.

The cycle from 1976-1998 is the "poster cycle" for AGW proponents, because there was a rapid increase in temperature at the same time as human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose.  Other cycles do not present a very convincing correlation.

This site starts out discussing the thesis "Global warming stopped in 1998".  

There is no doubt that the observed facts (from all four records) show that this is precisely what has happened for now.  That is not to say that global warming may not start again some time in the future, but for now all records show that it has either flattened out or reversed slightly since 1998 (or 2001, if one prefers not to start with the all-time record ENSO year).

The attached graphs show pretty clearly what is going on.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3232/2590412265_d7f734577c ...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/2591260894_011a1a6c9c ...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2591268046_fa0d4057e9 ...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3108/2590437485_805bc7a960 ...

Regards,

Max
On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 5 months ago 170 Responses

Don't get frustrated, jbullfrog

Hi jbullfrog,

You wrote: "So frustrating".

Don't get frustrated.  Open your mind.  Be rationally skeptical of any hysterical hype that's out there or any agenda-driven pseudo-science that's used to back it up.

Think for yourself.

Free yourself from fear and anxiety.

Your frustrations will go away if you do, I can assure you.

Regards,

MaxOn 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 109 Responses

A correction of Peter's statement

Hi Peter,

Been away from this site for a few days.

You wrote:

'You write " Applying Stefan-Boltzmann: dT = 5.78 / [ 4 * 5.6705E-08 * (288.16^3) ]
= 1.1K (equals 1.1C)"

I seem to rememeber you posting a similar calculation on another forum and coming up with a figure 0.7 deg C for a doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial level.'

Duh! Your memory is a bit confused.

2 X CO2 (according to Arrhenius, Stefan-Boltzmann and Myre et al [IPCC]) gives us an increase of 0.7C (actually 0.683C, to be more exact).

Going from today's 380 ppmv to the absolute maximum-maximum worst case ever when all fossil fuels are gone gets us to around 1100 ppmv and 1.1C above today's temperature.

Since the assumed "positive feedbacks" required to multiply this dT by over 4X are unproven and have even been challenged based on actual observations (water vapor/clouds), we can dismiss them for now and stay with the greenhouse theory "as is" for CO2 (and other GHGs) alone.

Got it?

It's really quite simple, once you look at the physical reality of the observed data out there(rather than the virtual reality of the GIGO climate models).

Regards,

MaxOn IPCC likely too optimistic about recoverable coal posted 1 year, 6 months ago 20 Responses

Response to katakanadian

"What are the estimated rates of conversion to non-fossil energy sources in this model (if included at all) and are we really converting that quickly? I suspect not."

Your suspicion may be flawed.

History has shown us that we shift priorities as new challenges and opportunities arise, so there is no reason to believe that this history will not repeat itself.

The "green" opposition to nuclear energy is already starting to crumble as it becomes clear that this is the most viable solution to the possibility of decreasing fossil fuel supplies.

Look around you.  That is what is happening.

Regards,

MaxOn IPCC likely too optimistic about recoverable coal posted 1 year, 6 months ago 20 Responses

ClimateCriminal makes sense on conservation

ClimateCriminal wrote some wise words on 7 May:

"Anybody who thinks that limited resources means it's OK to plunder natural resources right up to the wire, without developing renewable alternative high efficiency generation and other technologies and better insulation ready to switch over to renewables, is heading for a hard landing and fooling themselves."

All of this makes good sense.  Saving energy where possible, reducing dependency on imported oil from politically unstable regions, eliminating waste, replacing low efficiency power plants with newer high-efficiency plants, including renewables (where this makes economic sense), building new nuclear generation plants, growing motor fuel (as Brazil is already doing successfully with sugar cane ethanol), etc.

40% of natural gas and 25% of petroleum go into higher added value non-fuel end uses (petrochemicals, plastics, fertilizers, etc) today.  This percentage will undoubtedly increase in the future.  Even coal will eventually become too scarce to just burn and it will be used for higher added value end uses.  South Africa (SASOL) already does this.

And there is no practical limit of nuclear fuel as uranium available on this planet, just using today's fission technology, not to mention future "fast breeder" reactors that use less than 2% of the uranium used today per KWH generated.

And then there is the long-term possibility of nuclear fusion if and when fuel for fission ever starts to run short several hundreds of years from now.

This does not require that we "tax fossil-fuels and use those taxes to encourage develop[ment of] renewable [and other fossil fuel independent] technologies" as CC suggests.

These developments will all occur because they make sense.  

But all of this has nothing to do with taxing carbon to mitigate the the imaginary "threat from AGW", which does not make any sense at all.

MaxOn IPCC likely too optimistic about recoverable coal posted 1 year, 6 months ago 20 Responses

Fossil fuel reserves and temperatures

Further to the earlier post on fossil fuel reserves and atmospheric CO2.

If we assume that the combustion of all fossil fuel reserves on Earth today will increase atmospheric CO2 from today's 380 ppmv to a level of 670 ppmv, what does this mean as far as temperatures are concerned?

Using IPCC's estimated radiative forcing (RF) of 1.66 W/m^2 from the increased CO2 concentration from pre-industrial values of 280 ppmv in 1750 to values of 379 ppmv in 2006, we arrive at an additional RF from 2006 to the future date when all fossil fuels are gone equal to 3.05 W/m^2 (the relationship is logarithmic).

This means that the burning of all the fossil fuels available on this planet will cause an additional temperature increase (from today until that time) of 0.56C.

Even Andrew Dessler will have to agree that this is truly insignificant.

Let's all go back to sleep and forget about this non-problem.

Or better yet, let's forget about this non-problem and start to concentrate on solving some real problems that exist out there.

MaxOn IPCC likely too optimistic about recoverable coal posted 1 year, 6 months ago 20 Responses

Message to Steven Earl Salmony

Amen, brother!

The end is near!

Repent now or perish!On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

Check the thermometers, Pangolin

Hi Pangolin,

Of course the warming has stopped (for now).  All you have to do is look at the official records.

There has been no warming since 1998 (or 2001, if you prefer not to start with the all-time record ENSO year, 1998).

You sort of went into an emotional rant with, "If you want to believe Christian-fundie-whacko, weatherman, Anthony Watts and the mushrooms growing in his shade go right ahead. Just don't pretend it's science."

No, Pangolin, I believe the thermometers out there (the same ones that were used a few years ago to sell us the alarming AGW storyline).

To deny the current flat to slight cooling trend is just sticking your head in the sand.  Even Dr. Pachauri has said he would look into the reasons for this "plateau", adding that he hoped people would not use this to conclude that AGW is "hogwash".

And nobody (including you, me or the fancy computer models) knows if it is going to continue cooling for a while, or start warming again.

Isn't that exciting?  Isn't nature grand?

Regards,

Max
On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 109 Responses

A bad time for AGW "believers"

The 21st century has not started out well for "believers" in the AGW hypothesis, or for the politicians and bureaucrats that are hoping to use the AGW scare to implement hundreds of billions of dollars in carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes.

The ink has barely dried on the IPCC's 1,000+ page AR4 WG1 report and it is already way out of date.

While AGW alarmists are predicting model-generated imminent "tipping points" with disastrous consequences, the thermometers out there (even the ones next to AC exhausts or asphalt parking lots) are telling us a different story: global warming has stopped.

Global land and sea surface temperatures have reversed the late 20th century warming trend and have cooled slightly since around 1998. The satellite temperature record of the troposphere shows the same slight cooling trend.

Ocean temperature measurements from Argo robots show that the ocean has cooled significantly since 2003, when measurements started, essentially reversing the warming measured at spot locations over the previous 50 years.  Since the ocean holds 1,000 times more heat than the atmosphere, this is a sign of major cooling of our planet.

The cold winter 2007/2008, that did not want to end, has broken records all over the world, and the WMO tells us that 2008 will continue to be colder than normal, as ENSO is in a cool cycle and Solar Cycle 24 starts out very slowly.

And during all this cooling, human CO2 emissions are continuing at record rates, as the economies of new giants, such as China and India are booming, European emissions are continuing to rise and Americans are still driving around in their gas-guzzling SUVs.

To make matters even worse for the AGW alarmists, there are increasing numbers of scientists and journalists that are daring to take the "non-PC" stand of questioning the science underpinning the AGW scare.  One such article by a top climate scientist:
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828

And, in this age of instant information, AGW skeptical sites like ClimateAudit, WattsUpWithThat, etc. are drawing the public's attention to weak points and errors in the science and data, which support the AGW hypothesis.

No wonder the AGW alarmist sites like RealClimate, Grist, etc. are getting worried and are hoping to keep the scare going with articles denying what the thermometers are telling us ("it's just a speed bump in the road") or diverting our attention with claims of overwhelming "consensus" in the "peer reviewed scientific community" for AGW (the lead article here), etc.

The politicians are also getting concerned that the multibillion-dollar boondoggle may implode before it really gets off the ground and are shouting that "the debate is over" and "we must act now to save the planet before it's too late".

Before it is too late, indeed... Pop!

Max
On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 109 Responses

TP's got it right

Hi TP,

You wisely said, "If ya think climate change revolves around just CO2 and fuel, then you're very wrong."

Yep, An if ya think climate change (a.k.a. global warming) revolves around CO2 at all, "then you're very wrong", as the record shows.

So why put in a "carbon tax" to "solve" the problem?

Duh!  What problem?

Regards,

MaxOn Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

CO2 and temp link for TP

Hi TP,

Black Wallaby gave you a link to a curve that showed the recent CO2 correlation with temperature.

Here's some graphs that show how CO2 and global temperature have correlated over the past 150+ years.
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2469181025/sizes/o/

Whadda ya think about that? A "robust" causation?  Or a total "flim-flam"?  Hmm...

Regards,

Max
On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

Message for MisterNiceGuy

Hi MisterNiceGuy,

You have argued for "caution" rather than "certainty":
"That desire for certainty is good, but it's very important that we realize we don't need to be anywhere close to "sure" about a potentially bad outcome to justify caution."

This is the classical politicians' argument for justifying an unpleasant political agenda through fear.

US citizens were told by a group of politicians that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a Middle Eastern tinhorn dictator constituted an imminent threat to their security.  The specter of a "mushroom cloud smoking gun" was evoked unless immediate action is taken (a preemptive strike that ended up becoming a dragged out war without end costing trillions of dollars and many thousand lives).  The "intelligence" information concerning the WMD turned out to be incorrect, but the war could still have been justified, if one applies MNG's "caution rather than certainty" principle.

The world's citizens are now being told by another group of politicians that their emissions of CO2 constitute an imminent threat to the environment, other species and even humanity itself.  The specter of "6 meter waves swallowing New York City" is being evoked unless immediate action is taken (the implementation of draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes that will plunge the world into a major depression and make a few already wealthy individuals richer and give politicians and bureaucrats trillions of dollars to shuffle around).  Even if the "scientific basis" for potentially disastrous anthropogenic greenhouse warming turns out to have been incorrect, MNG argues that "I don't need to be `sure' that CO2 and other human-caused GHG's are accelerating the rate of global warming in order to justify caution."

My (very nice) precautionary advice to MNG:  
·    watch out for politicians (or environmental activists or AGW snake oil salesmen) that are using fear mongering to frighten the public into accepting an unpleasant political agenda
·    be skeptical of their claims and make absolutely sure that the "imminent disaster" projections they use to generate this fear are based on sound science and not agenda-driven pseudoscience.

Regards,

MaxOn Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

No evidence of early GHG increase

Sorry, TP.

Check it out yourself and you will see that IPCC does not show any major increases in other GHGs over these early periods.

The data they show on CO2 would indicate an increase of about 2 ppmv over the 1858 to 1879 warming period and about 15 ppmv over the 1910-1944 warming period.

"Off the top of your head" is nice, but quantified information supported by hard data is a lot better. The late 19th century increase in coal use compared to today's SUVs, etc.?  Gimme a break, TP.

Regards,

MaxOn Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

A closer look at the Hadley record

Andrew Dessler has referred us to the Hadley global land and sea surface temperature anomaly record and advised us to look at the data.  A good suggestion.

Below are links to these data showing the overall linear trends, plus the linear trends during the various multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles observed since the record started.

The Hadley globally averaged annual land and sea surface temperature anomaly (raw data)
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...

The Hadley temperature record since 1850
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2464515301/sizes/o/

The three multi-decadal warming cycles since 1850
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2465370166/sizes/o/

The seven multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles since 1850
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2465302088/sizes/o/  

What can be seen from these data is that
·    There has been an overall warming trend since 1850
·    There have been three multi-decadal cycles of warming (and four cycles of cooling) since 1850, when the record started
·    Warming over the most recent cycle (1976-1998) is not at all unusual, when compared to warming over two earlier cycles (1858-1879 and 1910-1944), when there was very little impact of CO2 or other GHGs

Since the warming of the most recent cycle is attributed (by IPCC) to CO2 (and other anthropogenic GHGs) because models show that "no other explanation can be found", yet no explanation has been found for the other two warming periods (when there was very little or no increase in CO2), the logic goes something like this:

1.    We cannot explain what caused the late 19th century and early 20th century warming.
2.    We know that CO2 caused the late 20th century warming.
3.    Why?
4.    Because nothing else explains it.

And, one could add:  we also do not know what has caused the recent plus mid-20th century flat to cooling trends.  

The clear "take home" is that there are multi-decadal cycles of climate change, that have very little to do with CO2 (or other man-made GHGs), as many other contributors to this site have also seen and expressed.

Max
On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

MNG (nicely) gets it wrong on CO2

Other Grist contributors may have noted an apparent strange confusion on the part of a very nice contributor to this site when confronted with an inconvenient, yet unexplained, warming period that could not have been caused by CO2.

When it was pointed out that during the late 19th century warming cycle, temperature records show a linear increase of temperature of around 0.38C over a 21-year period 1858-1879 (very close to the 0.37C linear increase observed during the 22-year period 1976-1998), during which time frame there was essentially no increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (only around 2 ppm), so that the warming could hardly have been caused by CO2 (as is being suggested by default for the late 20th century period, where CO2 concentrations rose by 33 ppmv).

You (very nicely) pointed out that there was an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv in 1850 (based on IPCC reports citing ice core data), so that there was not "essentially no CO2".  

May I very nicely ask you what that has to do with the earlier conclusion that CO2 could hardly have had anything to do with the late 19th century warming cycle, as there was "essentially no" increase in CO2 concentration over this warming period?

This also begs the second question, which is: if the causes for the early warming cycle cannot be explained, how can we be sure that the same "unexplained" factors, rather than CO2, have not also caused the late 20th century warming.

Hope I asked this nicely enough.

Regards,

MaxOn Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

The IPCC poster years

Message to Bob Tisdale

Thanks for your info.

You are 100% right.  There are many explanations for the 1976-1998 warming cycle beside increased CO2.  In fact, CO2 has only been incriminated by IPCC because "model studies" supposedly show that there is no other explanation".

But, as you say, these model studies have failed to consider the factors you mentioned (ENSO, PDO and AMO) and they do not mention the solar cycle and downgrade TSI impact to less than 1/10th of CO2

For me the weakest part of the IPCC argument for AGW causality is this:  they admit they cannot explain the early 20th century warming cycle when there was very little CO2 (and they do not even mention the late 19th century warming cycle, when there was essentially no CO2), yet they attribute the late 20th century warming to CO2 (and other GHGs) because models indicate that "no other explanation can be found".

The logic goes like this
1.    We cannot explain what caused early 20th century (and late 19th century) warming
2.    We know that CO2 caused late 20th century warming
3.    Why?
4.    Because nothing else explains it besides CO2

To me this is a fatal flaw in the causality argument.

Regards,

Max
On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

Examining climate change over decades

In his lead article, Andrew Dessler advises us: "Climate change must be examined over decades, not years."

This is sound advice.  Fortunately, we have a record (Hadley) that goes back to 1850, so that gives us plenty of decades to look at.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...

If we follow Andrew's advice, we see that there has been several multidecadal cycles of warming and cooling over the record, with an underlying warming trend of slightly under 1C over the entire 150+ year record.

There were three warming and four cooling cycles:
1850-1858 (8 years), -0.091C/decade; -0.07C cooling over period (part of an earlier cycle?)
1858-1879 (22 years), +0.172C/decade, +0.38C warming over period
1879-1910 (31 years), -0.074C/decade; -0.23C cooling over period
1910-1944 (35 years), +0.150C/decade; +0.53C warming over period
1944-1976 (33 years), -0.013C/decade; -0.04C cooling over period
1976-1998 (23 years), +0.159C/decade; +0.37C warming over period
1998-2008 (10 years) -0.021C/decade; -0.02C cooling over period (beginning of a cooling cycle?)

Over these cycles we had the following increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations:
1850-1858, <1 ppmv increase over period
1858-1879, 2 ppmv
1870-1910, 6 ppmv
1910-1944, 15 ppmv
1944-1976, 23 ppmv
1976-1998, 33 ppmv
1998-2008, 20 ppmv

So we have the most recent warming cycle (1976-1998), which shows warming with increased CO2.

The early 20th century warming cycle shows even more warming with little increase in CO2, while the late 19th century warming cycle shows warming and essentially no increase in CO2.

The mid-century cooling cycle shows slight cooling with significant increase in CO2, while the latest decade (beginning of a new cycle?) shows slight cooling with a very high rate of increase in CO2.

The only cycle that really fits the AGW theory is the period 1976-1998.  This has been the AGW "poster" period.  It has been used to "sell" the story.

No wonder that earlier warming and cooling cycles that do not fit the AGW theory are not discussed by IPCC.

And no wonder AGW aficionados (like Andrew) are scrambling to try to keep the image of continued warming alive, even when the record shows it has stopped.

Max
On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 7 months ago 68 Responses

Has global warming stopped (for now)?

Hi MNG,

You wrote: "The red trend line, which is a 5 year average, seems to be just starting to level off at its rightmost end, which is roughly 2 years ago."

Unfortunately, you cannot use a 5-year trailing average to determine what has happened over the last years of a trend.

If you look at the Hadley data, we see that there has been a flat trend over the 10-year period since 1998.  But some may object that starting the trend with the record year 1998 introduces an "artifact".

So if we start the record with 2001 we show a slight cooling trend in three of the four records (Hadley, UAH, RSS) and a flat trend in GISS.

And the WMO tells us 2008 is likely to continue to be cooler than average. So we have an 8-year flat to cooling trend.

Whether this is the start of a longer-term flat or slight cooling trend is anyone's guess.

As you point out, the record shows that the planet has been warming since records started (and long before any significant anthropogenic CO2) in 1850, and that this warming has occurred over three multidecadal warming cycles with intermittent multidecadal cooling cycles and an overall warming trend of 0.6 to 0.7C per century.

I agree fully with you that it is logical to assume that this warming trend will continue (for whatever reasons) into the 21st century.

Until we really understand what caused the earlier warming cycles of the late 19th century and the early 20th century, plus what caused the intermittent cooling periods and the current "plateau", we cannot really be sure that this all has anything to do with CO2.

The point here is that you cannot look at 5-year trailing averages to see what is happening at the curve's "rightmost end".  You have to go to the actual data points.  And, yes, these data show that the warming has stopped (for now).

IPCC Chairman, Dr. Pachauri, has said he would look into the reasons for the most recent "plateau", adding that he hoped this would not influence people into thinking that global warming is "hogwash".

So let's see what his conclusions will be and what will happen over the next few years.

It is probably safe to predict that, if the flat to cooling trend continues for a few more years while CO2 emissions continue, many people will start concluding that the suggested link between temperature and CO2 is tenuous (particularly since it was only really observed during the most recent warming cycle) and that AGW is not really the serious threat some would have us believe.

We shall see.

Regards,

Max
On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

Michael is wrong on IPCC

Sorry, Michael, your last post was not very convincing.

IPCC is trying to sell a message to the world (i.e. that increasing human CO2 emissions are causing temperatures to rise to dangerous levels).

This is being done to justify draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes (which UN would like to implement across all nations).

This message still had some semblance of validity a few years ago, but recent developments show that it is now very doubtful.

It will only be a matter of time until this whole bubble bursts and it becomes clear to one and all that (as you put it) the whole concern was based on nothing but hype to justify a political agenda.

Will this happen in one year, in two years or in five years?

My guess it is closer to one year than five years.

What is your guess on this?

Regards,

MaxOn 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

Message to Black Wallaby

Black Wallaby asked: "Would any Grist readers like me to respond to his [MNG] latest comment?"

Yes, by all means, but only if you do it in a nice manner.

Regards,

MaxOn 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

A nice tip for MNG and other Grist readers

Hi MNG,

You wrote (very nicely):
"Those who feel the 21-point smoothed trend does not meet their needs are welcome to look at this 5-year-average trend line, or to ignore the portion of the 21-point smoothed trend line which extends beyond 1997."

Rather than using manipulated, adjusted or "smoothed" data, I would suggest that those who want to know what is really going on should go to the original source of the data as published and look at what these data points indicate, doing their own analyses of trend lines, etc.

A tip for Grist readers:  by going to the original data you have the advantage of being able to make up your own mind on what the data indicate, rather than letting someone else (even a very nice person like MNG) do this for you.

I hope I communicated this tip nicely, and that you, MNG, will not be offended.

Regards,

MaxOn 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

Message to Michael

"IPCC is not a big employer or a major funding agency."

Not directly, anyway.

But if there were no UN there would be no IPCC.

If there were no IPCC there would be no highly publicized AGW scare.

If there were no highly publicized AGW scare, there would be no need for billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded climate research (better spend all that money on a real problem).

And if the research shows that there is no AGW problem and that everything is likely to be OK it does not get repeat government funding (no crisis = no funding).

That's the connection.

Regards,

Max
On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

CO2 and temp link for MNG

Hi MNG,

Liked your automobile analogy.

Also liked your statement: "Just because recent changes in temperature anomaly don't seem to correlate linearly and in sync with changes in CO2 at Mauna Loa, that doesn't mean rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have no effect on temperatures."

I could rephrase this is follows:
"Just because recent changes in temperature anomaly don't seem to correlate linearly and in sync with changes in CO2 at Mauna Loa, that doesn't mean rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations do have any effect whatsoever on temperatures."

Both sentences make sense.

The second one may even make just a little more sense than the first one, although that is just my opinion.

I could add:
"Just because none of the cycles of warming and cooling observed over the past 150+ years, with the notable exception of the 22-year period from 1976 to 1998, show any correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures, that doesn't mean rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have no effect on temperatures."

Nor does this observed fact show that rising CO2 concentrations do have any effect on temperatures.

But it sure raises an inconvenient question, leading to the statement:

And, until IPCC or anyone else can show what caused the warming cycles prior to the increase in CO2 concentrations and why these same factors were not responsible for the most recent warming cycle it makes the case for CO2/temperature causality very weak.  

In fact, without such a detailed analysis eliminating any other unexplained factors, this causality is based on greenhouse theory, computer models and conjecture alone.

But I welcome your links to scientific studies that have determined the reasons for the "pre-CO2" warming cycles and have specifically concluded that these reasons could not also have caused the most recent warming.  

I am sure that other Grist readers beside myself are eagerly awaiting your response in order to clear up this most important issue that lies at the heart of the entire AGW hypothesis.  

If possible, I would nicely suggest that you stick to the specific issue here and avoid side issues and analogies, even though these may all be very interesting.

Hope I said this nicely enough.

Regards,

MaxOn 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

Cycles in the temperature record

Mister Nice Guy has very nicely helped enlighten Grist readers with some very polite words of wisdom:

"Hopefully by looking at these three graphs, showing monthly linear trend, yearly linear trend, 5-year moving-point-average trend, and 21 point smoothed trend, Grist readers can see the effect of the various time spans used in the trend calculations and weigh the significance of the various downswings and upswings in the temperature anomaly over the past 150 years."

Jabailo has also shed some very helpful light on long term versus short term trends in the record.

As MNG has informed Grist readers there have been distinct "downswings and upswings in the temperature anomaly over the past 150 years".

The record shows that this is, indeed, true, as MNG suggests.  If we use the Hadley record that goes back to 1850 we can identify these multidecadal "downswings and upswings" more closely.  We see that there were three cycles of warming and four cycles of lesser cooling, with an underlying overall trend of warming over the entire period.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...

If we correlate the linear rate of change of the temperature anomaly and the linear temperature change with the change in atmospheric CO2 over these cycles, we see the following:

1850-1860:  linear cooling trend of -0.112C/decade, linear change -0.11C, negl. change in CO2

1860-1879: linear warming trend of +0.176C/decade, linear change +0.35C, 2 ppm CO2 increase

1879-1906: linear cooling trend of -0.039C/decade, linear change -0.11C, 5 ppm CO2 increase

1906-1940: linear warming trend of +0.130C/decade, linear change +0.44C, 14 ppm CO2 increase

1940-1976: linear cooling trend of -0.006C/decade, linear change -0.02C, 25 ppm CO2 increase

1976-1998: linear warming trend of +0.159C/decade, linear change +0.35C, 33 ppm CO2 increase

1998-2008: linear cooling trend of -0.021C/decade, linear change -0.02C, 20 ppm CO2 increase

Most rapid rate of increase was in the 20-year cycle 1860-1879, followed by the 22-year cycle 1976-1998 and the 36-year cycle 1906-1940.

Roughly 30% of the total warming occurred in the most recent warming cycle (1976-1998), another 30% in the late 19th-century warming cycle (1860-1879) and roughly 40% in the early 20th-century warming cycle (1906-1940).  Intermittent cooling cycles reversed roughly 10% of the warming over the entire 150+ year record, for a net overall linear warming of somewhat over 1C.

The data do not show an apparent correlation between warming and CO2 over the individual cycles.  

Hope this, together with the input from MNG helps Grist readers see the cyclical nature of the "downswings and upswings" mentioned by MNG and the correlation between temperature and CO2 over these cycles.

MaxOn 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

jbullfrog got it wrong again

Actually, jbullfrog, you got it wrong. I am not a "conspiracy theorist".

Read what I wrote, don't try to re-phrase it with your spin on it.

IPCC was set up by the UN, a political body, to investigate anthropogenic influences on climate (i.e. primarily the impact of human CO2 on warming) and to report whether these changes would have any negative impacts on humanity and the environment, with the underlying agenda to find ways to mitigate any identified potential problems by implementing political solutions.

The existence of the IPCC depends on (a) the identification of anthropogenic climate forcing factors and (b) the projection that the impact of these is likely to be more negative than positive, unless (c) mitigating steps are taken.  

No anthropogenic forcing with potential for negative impact = no need for IPCC to exist.   Bureaucratic committees do not easily disband voluntarily, so it is a matter of self-preservation to keep a level of alarm alive that AGW could cause serious problems.

 "Climate scientists" must get taxpayer-funded grants to do their work.  If the work meets the political agenda of the IPCC, it will get funding.  If not, it has a lower chance. The motto here is: "no crisis = no funding".  Billions of dollars are at stake here and the smart researchers know what is necessary to get the funding they need.  The most effective reports conclude with statements such as "the problem could become more serious, but additional work is required to identify the magnitude of this potential problem" (guaranteed to get more funding from politicians who also benefit from a potential crisis).

Some of these "climate scientists" have gotten stuck in the AGW paradigm that pays their salaries.  To challenge the paradigm is to risk losing their funding and getting scorn from colleagues who are also stuck in the paradigm or fear for their funding.

In such an "in-bred" society the "peer review" process is often just a rubber-stamping by like-minded colleagues as was demonstrated by the Mann hockey stick scandal.

"Serious scientific journals" also fall into the trap.  Papers that defend or support the AGW paradigm are more eagerly accepted for publication than those, which challenge this paradigm.

This is not to say that many of these "climate scientists" do not truly believe there could be a problem, and some may actually have the warm feeling that they are doing something good to "save the planet".

Some of these "climate scientists" become "activists" or "alarmists".  A classical example is James E. Hansen, paid by the US government to give un-biased weather and climate information to the US public, but instead of doing his job he is spreading scare stories of imminent "tipping points" with horrible consequences for humanity, other species and the planet itself unless carbon taxes are implemented immediately.  In other cases it is the politicians, such as Al Gore or Ban Ki Moon, that do the scare mongering in order to get public support for their personal, financial or political agendas.

We even have Hollywood and the Nobel committee handing out politically motivated prizes.

This is not a "conspiracy".  It is "agenda driven science" and plain old human nature.  Remember that politicians, bureaucrats and scientists are all just human beings.

You accuse the oil and coal lobbies of doing the same.  The managers and directors of these companies are also just human beings.  I cannot disagree in principle that both sides use the same approach.  I have just seen a much lower volume of "agenda driven science" from these lobbies than from the AGW lobbies that are spending billions of dollars annually to sell their message.  

AGW has truly become "big business", and the vast majority of papers out there on climate change support the AGW viewpoint.  Several billions of dollars go a long way toward building "consensus".

And then you have the media (also directed by human beings).  Nothing sells as well (and brings in profits as surely) as a good "imminent disaster" story.  Here again there may be some individuals who think they are doing something good for humanity by alarming the public to a problem that is sure to come.  Others are in it for the "bucks".

No conspiracy required, jbullfrog.  Just plain old folks, billions of dollars and "agenda driven science" at work.

Regards,

Max
On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

Reply to jbullfrog

Hi jbullfrog,

You wrote: "This temperature record you keep talking about, Max, is not "observed facts."

IPCC believes in it jbullfrog.  Don't you?  It may have some built in human errors and UHI distortions, etc., especially in later years as AC units were put in next to thermometers and asphalt parking lots were put in.  But these records are all we have as far as observed surface air temperature records are concerned.  So they are as close to "facts" as we are going to get.

IPCC uses this record to sell its AGW story.  Problem is, they cherry pick the part of the record they want to talk about and ignore the part that does not support their AGW story.

You wrote: "Who are you to say this one temperature record is correct, or more brashly, to say that it proves anything, when there are so many other temperature records that suggest the opposite? Clearly there is some explanation, but who are you to decide what it is?"

Which other records "suggest the opposite"?  Please specify what you are talking about.
The two satellite records (UAH, RSS) agree with flat to slight cooling since 1998. GISS is the "odd man out" and shows flat to slight warming. Over the past seven years (2001-2008) all records agree with flat to slight cooling.

The two satellite records can obviously not be used to track the early 20th-century and late 19th-century warming cycles, because they did not exist.

I personally have more faith in Hadley than GISS, in view of the recent disclosures of errors in the GISS record for the USA, which had to be corrected quietly.  I also have a bit of a problem with the objectivity of James E. Hansen, since he has become an AGW activist preaching "tipping point" stories instead of giving the US taxpayers unbiased information on weather and climate.  And, as noted above, I have seen that when comparing trends (particularly over the past 10 years), the GISS record is "odd man out" compared to the other three (Hadley, UAH and RSS).

Hope this clears things up for you.

Regards,

Max
On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

What "other scientists" think

Hi jbullfrog,

You wrote:
"Furthermore, it definitely does matter whether other scientists find the work to be robust and legitimate."

Not really.

"Other scientists" at the time thought Alfred Wegener's theory of "continental drift" was not "robust and legitimate".  

They were even in "overall consensus" of this view, as is being claimed now for the AGW hypothesis.

And that was before there was a multi-billion dollar AGW industry paying scientists to find the AGW paradigm "robust and legitimate".

Wake up to the facts, jbullfrog.  It's a multibillion dollar scam.

Regards,  

Max
On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

Message for jbullfrog

Hi jbullfrog,

You got it wrong when you wrote:
"The question at hand is not whether we like these scientists' ideas or the consequences they imply. It is whether their work is legitimate and robust based on the opinions of other scientists, not Joe Schmo bloggers."

Here's what's wrong with that.

The work does not have to be "robust based on the opinions of other scientists (or bloggers)", it has to be "robust based on sound observed physical evidence".

The AGW link between anthropogenic GHGs (primarily CO2) and temperature is not.

This hypothesis cannot explain earlier periods of global warming (late 19th, early 20th centuries), the mid-20th-century cooling period and the current "plateau" in warming.  In fact, over the entire 150+ years of the temperature record, it only shows good correlation for the 22-year period 1976-1998.  22 out of 150 is about a 15% hit rate; not too "robust".

Forget "opinions of other scientists", bring evidence.

MaxOn 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

Coby Beck was wrong

Coby Beck made this statement (some time back): "I am not aware of a temperature record that shows warming starting in 1850, it does not get going until around 1900."

This statement is incorrect.  Coby should check the Hadley record, which goes back well before 1900.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...  

The Hadley record shows a period of slight cooling from 1850, when its record began, to around 1860.

From 1860 through 1879 there was a period of rapid warming.  If Coby were to download the Hadley data into Excel and plot a trend line, he would see that the warming trend over this period was 0.196 degC per decade (while CO2 rose by 2 ppmv), higher than any subsequent period, INCLUDING the much-ballyhooed period starting in 1976 and ending in 1998, which had a warming trend of 0.175 degC per decade (while CO2 rose by 33 ppmv).

The 20-year 1860-1879 period accounted for around 30% of all the warming since the record started.

IPCC (like Coby) ignore this early period of warming.

It is an "inconvenient" period, since it cannot be explained by AGW.  It cannot be explained by unusual solar activity.  In fact, it cannot be explained.

The second period of warming started in 1906 and ran to around 1940.  This period is very briefly mentioned in passing in AR4 WG1 Chapter 9 (p.691): "Detection and attribution as well as modeling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming than the recent warming."

40% of the total temperature rise occurred during this 34-year period, although the linear trend was somewhat lower than in the other two periods at 0.161 degC per decade.  CO2 rose by 14 ppmv over this period.

IPCC states (Chapter 3, p.240): "The picture prior to 1976 has essentially not changed and is therefore not repeated in detail here."

Now IPCC also states (p.681) "The simulations also show that it is not possible to reproduce the 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" and (p.685) that the warming during the most recent period "can only be reproduced when models are forced with combinations of external forcings that include anthropogenic forcings".

The logic"
1.    We cannot explain what caused the warming of two earlier periods (1860-1879 and 1906-1940)
2.    We are not interested in clearing up the "uncertainties" of any unexplained forcing factors for these periods, in fact we are not going to talk about them at all.
3.    We know that AGW largely contributed to the warming from 1976 to 1998.
4.    We know this is the case, because our models cannot explain it otherwise (i.e. AGW is guilty by "default").

Until IPCC investigates in detail both earlier periods, which together account for 70% of the total warming since records began, they cannot name CO2 (and other GHG) as the culprit by default for the most recent warming period, which accounts for the remaining 30% of the total warming.

This is the fatal flaw in the AGW hypothesis.

MaxOn 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

Andrew will not answer

Hi Black Wallaby,

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,

MaxOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

The fatal flaw

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?

Max
On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 7 months ago 170 Responses

Enjoy your trip

Hi solarmeter,

Enjoy your trip to Saipan and Japan.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Message for Solarmeter

Hi Solarmeter,

Checked out your info on UV exposure / melanoma / Vitamin D / etc. and agree.  The correlations are not straightforward.  I had always been led to believe that the link was fairly strong (at least for the non-melanoma skin cancer), but it looks like there are mixed data even there.  And heredity is one of the big factors.

This is where Andrew Dessler may have (accidentally) gotten it right this time in comparing this with man-made global warming, where the correlations (this time between man-made CO2 and global warming) are also not straightforward.

But Andrew likes to make these analogies which sometimes end up backfiring on him, in order to "sell" his personal take on potentially disastrous anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW) to an audience of non-experts, without having to defend the AGW theory itself or the sometimes spotty data used to support it.

When he gets into defending a specific AGW claim (such as on an earlier thread concerning the link between hurricanes and AGW) he sometimes gets into trouble.

On a previous thread he used an analogy to "obesity" (and got irate responses from contributors who felt personally attacked).

His other ploy has been to "trash" an individual or group of individuals who have spoken out against the IPCC or some of the more ridiculous predictions of disaster from AGW.  These individuals are not "qualified" to have a relevant opinion on such matters. There was a series of these threads around the end of last year.  These threads serve to sell the concept of "scientific consensus" on AGW by attempting to discount those individuals who do not share the so-called consensus view.

Direct discussion with Andrew is interesting, however.  In a direct interchange he brings his ideas across very well and one can learn from them.  And he is certainly more than knowledgeable when it comes to "climate science" concepts.

But, unfortunately, he often makes his initial comments to get a discussion started and reacts to the first few responses and, after that, prefers to remain aloof and let others do the debating.

But I'm glad you are on the site and contributing.  We need as many rational and involved contributors as possible. And you'll have fun.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Fatal flaws for Greyfalcon

Hi GF,

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,

MaxOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Climate vs. weather in early 2008

World-wide weather versus climate in early 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
On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

No evidence against temp "plateau"

Out of the many bloggers who reject the fact that temperatures have reached a "plateau" over at least the past seven years, not one has brought any evidence to refute this fact.

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.

MaxOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

"Troll" blah-blah

Wow!

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.

MaxOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Tamino tale for JCross

Hi John,

A side issue.  You cited a Tamino tale.  Good for a chuckle.

But let's examine the Tamino allegory (Wikipedia; comment by me).

Prince Tamino has got lost in the forest [i.e. T. is having difficulty statistically seeing the forest for the trees] and now finds himself in a country which is ruled by the Queen of the Nights [also known as "never-never land"]. A huge monster [anthropogenic greenhouse warming] chases him and he is very frightened [in fact, he is hyterically terrified of certain doom]. He falls down in a faint [happens to the best of guys, when you are hysterically terrified of certain doom]. Three ladies who work for the Queen of the Nights come and kill the monster [the ladies are called "Sun", "Cloud" and "Reason"]. Then they see the handsome prince and they argue about which one of them will stay to look after him [Who will win? "Sun": the brightest, "Cloud": the coolest or "Reason": the most logical?   Actually, they all agree to share Tamino in a never-ending circle of happiness and love.  And they all live happily ever after...].

I like stories with happy endings, don't you?

Regards,

Max
On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Hoping to be nice...

Let's do a MNG

Thank you for your recent blog, Black Wallaby.  

That was helpful input, especially your input on the Antarctic, and the very pertinent explanation of the wiggly black line as an arbitrarily selected 20-year smoothing of apparently unpublished code, which was selected to give a desired low frequency smoothing.  

Solarmeter, thanks very much for taking the time to improve my understanding of the long time changes that are due far more to solar cycles than to man-made influences and the futility of tax increases to help stop global warming.   That helps a lot.

"Hoping to be nice."

Max
On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Some food for thought on global warming

 
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
On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

josullivan58 is wrong, yet once again!

Hey josullivan58,

What you claim is not really true. (In fact, it is totally untrue.)

The source of the data is the globally averaged surface land and sea temperature anomaly records published for all to see by Hadley, UAH, RSS and GISS.

These records all show a flat (or cooling) temperature trend over the past 7 years (since January 2001).

Can you bring any evidence to refute this?  

If so, please do do.

If not, back off on your somewhat stupid comment that "commenters are knocking themselves out to convince everyone that there has been a plateau in global warming".

A tip: the actually measured record shows irrefutably that there has been a "plateau".

Those are the facts, josullivan58.  Enjoy the good news rather than despairing!

Regards,

Max
On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Welcome solarmeter

Hi solarmeter,

A belated welcome to this site.

With all the AGW hysteria being blogged around on this site, it is reassuring to hear an occasional voice of reason, rather than all the panic expressed by the AGW-groupies you normally meet here.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

A climatologist's explanation for TP

Hey TP,

You wanted a "climatologist" explanation of the current cooling trend

Here's one:
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

Enjoy.

Regards,

Max
On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Hi Greyfalcon

Hi Greyfalcon,

Still waiting for some "fatal flaw" discussion rather than observations on "hasty triple reply".

Regards,

MaxOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Surface temp meaningless?

Hi Pangolin,

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,

MaxOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

State your bet, John

Hi John,

This post just covers our bet.  I'll get back to your other points separately, still in the good faith of resolving any points of our discussion that may still be open.

You started the whole topic of a bet with: "In fact I am confident enough to offer you a bet that in - say - 2020 the annual temperature will be more than it is this year (2008)."

You "cherry pick" 2008. The first months of 2008 have been unusually cold, as confirmed by all temperature recors, with snow in southern China, the Middle East, record snows in parts of North America, etc.  Even Grist tells us that the "World Meteorological Organization is expecting global temperatures to drop this year thanks to a strong La Niña."
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...

So I respond to your "cherry pick" with one of my own: 1998, the year that the global warming trend of the late 20th century ended, and you agreed, "Regarding the bet, yes, I am willing to take it up with the year being 1998."

You come back with, "First, I gave in to you and instead of using an average temperature for the last - say 10 years, you got to cherry-pick the year with the largest el-Nino of the century."

Now you object to the use of the Hadley record (rather than GISS). I explained to you why recent events had shown that GISS may be unreliable in some areas, so that is why I usually prefer the Hadley record for global surface temp.

Now you tell me the Hadley "global" number is not really as "global" as the GISS number.

Lots of waffling here, John.

State what you want to bet on and which parameters will be used.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Greyfalcon should address "fatal flaw"

Hey Greyfalcon,

I sent you some thoughts on the "fatal flaw" of Svensmark's cosmic ray theory versus the AGW theory.

Whaddaya think?

Regards,

MaxOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Tasermons Partner should check the record

Hey TP,

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,

MaxOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Reply to JCross

Hi John,

You asked: "How did you adjust for the month length."  I did not.  Can you show me how big an error this has introduced?

My R2 was .0125 not .004 as you say it was in your set of data.

1998 as the start year.  Great!

But I prefer Hadley unvarnished monthly data averaged over the year (they also report the annual average, as you know) to anything GISS puts out, in view of their "odd man out" status and the problems we have seen recently with "fudged" GISS records.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Greyfalcon gets it wrong again

Hey Greyfalcon,

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
On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Thanks for correcting typo

Hi Black Wallaby,

Thanks for correcting my typo.  Yep it is January 2001 (not 2100).

But in any case it looks like JCross has either gotten tired of this discussion or feels he has nothing more to contribute.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Why is JCross silent?

Hi John,

You have been kind of quiet for a while.  Is everything OK?

Since all records show that global warming stopped in January 2100 (the official beginning of the 21st century), do you have any comments?

Do you believe this is the beginning of a new flat or cooling trend or just a temporary 7-year "blip" in the curve?

Appreciate your thoughts on this.

If you prefer not to comment, I can understand.

Thanks and regards,

Max
On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Check the data TP

Hey TP,

Check the data for yourself.  They are out there for one and all to see.

Regards,

MaxOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

One more point for JCross

Hi John,

I raised the question regarding when the recent warming trens stopped (if not in 1998).

Going through all four 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

So maybe 2001 is when the warming trend stopped (for now).

Whether these past seven years are the beginning of a new cooling (or flat) trend or whether they just represent a "blip" in the curve is anyone's guess today, and I do not want to make any forecasts.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Message for JCross

Hi John,

Let's see if we can continue our discussion on the global temperature record in good faith and resolve any differences we may have.

You have written that you generally agree with points 1, 2 and 3:

1. that temperatures have been in an overall slow rising trend since 1850
   
2. that there are multidecadal swings from slight cooling to warming
   
3. that the recent warming trend from 1976 to 1998 is not unusual when compared to earlier warming periods, which occurred prior to AGW

Which years are warmer than 1998 in which record?

If I go back to the source of the data, I see that the "odd man out" is GISS.  All the other records show no years after 1998 that were warmer than 1998.

The past 120 months show a flat linear trend in three out of four records (GISS is "odd man out" again, with a slight warming trend).

The past 60 months show a cooling trend in all four records (including GISS).

So, in light of the observed records, when would you say that the recent warming trend ended, if not in 1998?  Maybe we can agree on a date here.

We were still not in agreement on two points:

4. that the impacts of various "forcing" components on the global average temperature are not as simple as IPCC would have us believe
   
5. that the ability of climate models to predict temperature trends is limited

I did not mean to imply that IPCC states that forcing components are "simple".  They do however present a rather simplistic view on which forcing factors play the largest role in climate change, and these are identified as anthropogenic greenhouse factors.  These are also the principal factors used in projecting future climate change, using climate models with various scenarios and storylines.

My point was that there must be something fairly significant at work here other than just AGW, since the correlation between atmospheric CO2 (plus other GHG) and temperature is not really that apparent when observed over the entire temperature record.  

What are these as yet unidentified forcing factors that caused rapid warming in the late 19th century and early 20th century, mid-20th century cooling and the current slowdown (or reversal) of warming?  Are we missing something basic here?

Point 5 is simply that the climate models have not shown a very good "hit rate" in the past on projecting temperatures (there have been several "global warming scorecards" published on this).  Here is one:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

My direct observation was that the models projected warming at a decadal rate of +0.2 degrees C for the early 21st century (higher than over any extended period to date), yet the current trend is actually flat or even cooling.

You have written, "In regards to the climate models, I have not yet entered a discussion on this topic that has come to any rational conclusions."

I can live with that statement.  The danger with any computer models is the old GIGO problem.

Someone once observed that had we had supercomputers back in the 1860s, when urban centers in England started exponential growth with ever-increasing "horse buggies", someone could have projected that within 100 years (by 1960) Manchester would be covered by two meters of horse manure.

So where are we still in disagreement?

Regards,

Max
On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

A message to Sarah81

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
On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Agreeing with JCross

Hi John,

Believe we can truly agree on one thing:  Your statement that "Agreement is a tricky thing".

Now I have been using the Hadley surface record and comparing with the UAH satellite record, but your totally different result from the GISS record made me curious, so I went back to the source of the data.

If I plot all the monthly anomaly readings from January (or March) 1998 to February 2008 (the last reading available in all three records), I get:

Hadley: 0.00 degrees C per decade
UAH: +0.01 degrees C per decade
GISS: +0.08 degrees C per decade

Nowhere do I see anything even close to +0.2 degrees C per decade.  This value may have been the "generally accepted value" at one point, but it is no longer the actually observed value.

Am I missing something here?  Did you include all the most recent data points in your analysis?  Did you use "12-month average" values rather than the monthly points?  How can you explain such a major difference?

Now to the trend: I have not said that the latest decade represents a "new long term trend".

It is less than half as long as the previous 22 year trend from 1976 to 1988, so we will have to wait and see.

Regards,

Max
On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

MNG is waffling

Hey MNG,

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,

MaxOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

A tip for Robco1

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.

Regards,

MaxOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Robco1 rants again

Let's talk facts, Robco1.  Check the data rather than just making silly statements about "trolls" and a "propaganda war".

"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).

MaxOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

A tip for MNG and TP

Please do not exclude the most recent monthly readings from your statistic (that would be selective exclusion of data).

Happy plotting!

Regards,

MaxOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Message to JCross re long term temp trends

Hi John,

Thanks for reply.

You wrote: "If you care to ask your question again without the rhetoric I will answer."

Please eliminate this sentence in my post to you:
"If you have no opinion, or if you are in agreement, you do not really need to reply."

Believe this is the sentence that was offensive to you.

But please let me know if any other statement in my post was unacceptable "rhetoric" and I can modify or eliminate it.

Looking forward to your viewpoint and a discussion on this topic.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Awaiting comments from JCross

Hi JCross,

We had a lively discussion about IPCC "cherry picking" on Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss (resp. gain) earlier.

I am still awaiting your comments on the actually observed temperature record per my earlier post.

If you have nothing to say, I can understand that. It could be unpleasant to admit that the observed link between temperature and human CO2 emissions is tenuous.

But if you do have something to say, please do so.

And hey, MNG, I am not at all being disrespectful to JCross by asking him for his comments, OK?

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

A look at global temperature facts for JCross

Here is one for JCross, who has recently shown his face on this site.

Hi John,

As one who is evidently concerned about climate change and its impacts, I would appreciate your comments on the statements below.

If you have no opinion, or if you are in agreement, you do not really need to reply.

There has been a lot of "hoopla" lately about "global warming".  The latest records show that it has essentially stopped over the past 10 years, which skeptics are eager to point out, but supporters of the global warming hypothesis are crying "foul".  It has not really stopped, and we are still at the highest levels of temperature anomaly today, therefore global warming is still a very real and apparent threat to humanity, the environment and our planet.

So let us see if we can cut through the hype from both sides and look at some facts.

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.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...

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 change 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 has gotten a lot of attention as evidence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW).

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 have been in an overall slow rising trend since 1850
·    that there are multidecadal swings from slight cooling to warming
·    that the recent warming trend from 1976 to 1998 is not unusual when compared to earlier warming periods, which occurred prior to AGW
·    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

John, I would appreciate your comments on the above, if you have any.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Go to the source, Tasermons Partner

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
On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Thoughts on the AGW debate for MNG

Hey MNG,

Just read your well-expressed thoughts on the contribution of the various threads to the ongoing debate surrounding anthropogenic global warming, and I admit that I agree with almost every single point you have made.

Let me give you one rational skeptic's view on what is going on here to see if we can find any common ground.

There is an on-going debate surrounding the current AGW "scare" (you may prefer to categorize this as an "awareness" rather than as a "scare", but unfortunately the fear factor has been injected into the discussion, so it is more than just an "awareness").  

This debate covers not only the accuracy, completeness and objectivity of the "science" supporting the suggestion that humans are causing major changes in climate, but also the veracity and credibility of computer-generated predictions of future changes allegedly arising from these anthropogenic causes and, finally, the political measures that are being proposed in order to mitigate these potential future problems.

This site (as well as many others) was set up to convey one particular viewpoint.  As can be seen from the lead articles, this site it is clearly supportive of the so-called "consensus" position that anthropogenic factors (primarily the emission of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, etc.) are causing significant changes in our planet's climate, that these will have, on balance, more negative consequences than positive ones on the environment, on mankind and on other species and that these changes could become alarming if something is not done to address the root cause (i.e. human CO2 emissions).

This view is summarized in the various reports of the IPCC, a UN body that was specifically set up to evaluate the anthropogenic impact on climate and, as a result, has "a dog in the race", (i.e. no anthropogenic impact = no need for IPCC to continue to exist).

Another premise of many of the proponents of this view is that "the science is settled" (because a majority of climate scientists support a "consensus view"), and it is now time for "action", rather than for further debate. "Action" is vaguely defined, but it goes much further than the very sound steps of conserving energy where possible, eliminating waste and pollution of the environment, etc. (which every rational human being should fully embrace).  In this context, however, "action" means implementing draconian political policy steps (carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes) involving hundreds of billions of dollars being shuffled around by politicians and bureaucrats, hedge funds, carbon trading companies, etc., where a few individuals will enhance their personal and financial power at the expense of everyone else.  These are the steps that many rational skeptics of the AGW scare oppose as unnecessary and ineffective.

There are other, more alarmists, views, expressed by politicians, such as Al Gore (in his Oscar winning film) and UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, (in newspaper articles warning of imminent inundations) or by scientists turned activists, such as James E. Hansen (in his many publications and "tipping point" testimony before the U.S. congress). These individuals proclaim, "Time is rapidly running out; we must act now or we will certainly be doomed!"  Many of the more vocal contributors to this site support these more alarmist views and believe that IPCC is being far too conservative and lackadaisical in describing the future disaster that awaits our planet.

There are also many sites, which support the view of rational skepticism and oppose the more alarmist predictions that are floating around (climate audit, etc.).  Individuals supporting both sides contribute to these sites, as well.

It has been my observation (as I believe it has been yours) that the discussion of these topics by individuals who hold different views is, in effect, a debate of the issues.  Each side states its arguments, premises and conclusions and in some (rare) cases finally agrees on a point of view that both parties can embrace.  Undoubtedly, both sides can learn from such a discussion, as you have pointed out.

You point out: "But recently some of the threads have drifted quite far from that style, toward "winning of arguments" instead of exchanging information or perspectives".  Yes, MNG, there is a "debate" going on, and the point of a debate is for each participant to listen to the opponent's arguments and premises, "get his/her points across" and, yes, in the end to "win the argument".

"Winning the debate" would appear to be a natural tendency when topics are discussed that could have far-reaching consequences.  

It becomes especially true when emotions are involved.  In a debate the appeal should be to reason rather than to emotion.  But when an argument is based on the emotion of fear (we will soon all be inundated!) or guilt (we are all at fault for being so disrespectful of our planet and other species!), then the discussion automatically becomes emotional rather than rational.

There is also the tendency of both sides to "dig in and hold ground" rather than conceding even a small bit.  I have seen this very clearly whenever (for example) a weak point, error or omission in an IPCC report is brought up.  The "IPCC supporter" will go to all extremes to point out that IPCC could not have been in error or could not have intentionally omitted important scientific data from its report.  Semantic distinctions between "made an error" and "cherry picked" become all-important.  (I had a recent exchange on another site on such an issue.)  

The debate can easily degenerate into a debate of "belief", much like a debate with a religious fundamentalist: "the Bible says so, the Bible is the word of God, so the Bible cannot be wrong" (exchange "IPCC Report" for "Bible" and "2,500 scientists" for "God").

It is also obvious that the longer an individual exchange goes on the more pointed the debate becomes.

There are some contributors to this and other sites that start off with "ad hominem" attacks, accusing the other party of being a "troll", a "denier", a "delayer", a "flat-earther", a "stooge" for big oil, etc. and making all sorts of personal insults.  The individuals who fall into this trap have difficulty keeping their personal emotions (anger, fear, disgust, hate?) out of the discussion.

In this context you remarked that it disappoints you that, "Many of the comments have been characterized by intense disrespect".  I agree that this is disappointing and that we should all avoid making disrespectful comments about the other individual.

But, MNG, I believe that what is going on is just human nature.  AGW is more than just a theoretical scientific discussion and a "multibillion dollar industry", it is an issue that can and may affect and involve us all.  That is why there are so many sites covering various aspects of this issue out there.

Fortunately we live in a democratic system, where issues can be discussed openly and dissent is not squashed.

And that is why the rational debate on these issues must continue.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

MNG is right

Hi MNG,

Of course you are right in saying we do not know what is going to happen.  By "we", I am including the IPCC and the many scientists out there.

We do not know for sure that atmospheric CO2 has anything to do with warming (even though IPCC thinks this is "very likely").

We do not know whether we are now entering the beginning of a cooling cycle, caused by some factor that we also do not know. And we do not know for sure what the effects of a colder climate would be on humanity, although we do have some recent historical evidence that it would not be too positive on balance.

To say "be cautious" implies that caution is the same as reducing CO2 emissions drastically because we do not know for sure that these may not be causing temperatures to increase, which we do not know for sure could cause sea levels to rises more rapidly than they have been ever since records started and which we do not know for sure could cause an increase in extreme weather events and tropical cyclone frequency and intensity, etc. etc.

We also do not know whether or not a warmer world would be a better place than today's world, whether higher atmospheric CO2 levels and moderately higher temperatures would not increase plant, forest and crop growth, whether it would enable arid and semi-arid reagions of the world to become green due to improved plant water use efficiency, whether or not there would in fact be fewer extreme weather events and tropical cyclones and fewer droughts, etc. etc.

To "excercise caution" in the hopes of being able to maintain the current status quo does not make much sense to me, if it includes making a significant sacrifice in our standard of living and in being able to address other, more important problems of this world that the computer generated virtual problem of anthropogenic climate change.

Just some thoughts from one who is less afraid of an unknown future than you appear to be.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Message to Tarsemons Partner

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
On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Just the facts on warming

So far no one has been able to refute the fact that the Hadley temperature record shows no warming trend since 1998.

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.

MaxOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Pachauri and the plateau

"The IPCC Chairman has acknowledged that there has been a "plateau" in global warming.
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,

MaxOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Andrew is not always wrong, just this time

Hey Andrew,

You wrote: "Max selectively quotes the Hansen article.  Why not quote the entire sentence in, Max?  Because it wouldn't make your point?"

Sorry, Andrew.  Your argument is weak.  You said that there were no papers saying that warmer oceans would cause release of CO2 which would cause an increase in global warming.

I showed you two examples that disproved your statement, one from Hansen.

Now you waffle around that I did not quote everything that Hansen said.

Face it, Andrew.  Hansen said that a "GHG feedback" could come from CO2 released from the oceans due to higher temperatures.  Right?

He even said this could be a most effective GHG feedback.

And you said earlier to BW that there were no scientific papers that stated this.

So you were wrong, Andrew.

Admit it.  It can happen to anyone.  Even you.  Don't take it so seriously.  You are not wrong all the time.  Just this time.

Regards,

Max
On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Andrew is wrong, yet once again!

Hi Andrew,

Sorry to cut into your exchange with BW, but you are wrong when you say: "Thanks for your response.  It's now crystal clear that you completely made up the "theory" that a warming world would lead to degassing of CO2 from the ocean.   For the lurkers: there's only one legitimate scientific theory, and that's increasing CO2 leads to ocean acidification.  If you want to see the science behind it, you can read the IPCC reports.  See Chapter 5 of the WGI report. "

Ummm... Maybe you should encourage your "lurkers" to read what James E. Hansen had to say:
"Most effective GHG feedback is release of CO2 by ocean at higher temperature"
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf ...

Then read what J. Ahlbeck had to say about this subject:
http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm

It's out there, Andrew.  All you gotta do is look for it.

Now I'll admit that you can probably tell your "lurkers" that Hansen's dire predictions of "positive feedback from ocean `outgassing' of CO2 at higher temperatures" may be wrong, but this theory is out there by an otherwise respected (if somewhat hysterical) climate scientist.

The analysis by Ahlbeck may be less interesting for you and your "lurkers", but it's out there, too.

So your statement that BW "completely made up the 'theory' that a warming world would lead to degassing of CO2 from the ocean" is not true.

Hansen and others made it up and published it.  

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Record shows global warming has reached a plateau

The lead article raises questions about the statement that global warming has stopped, but unfortunately the "artifact" claim does not hold (1998 was an unusual record year, so cannot be used as the starting point).

The statement was made that the claim of no warming since 1998: "has been thoroughly debunked every time it's popped up". A link to a statement by James E. Hansen is cited.

I prefer to go to the actual source of the data rather than relying on sites like gristmill or individuals like Hansen to tell me a message they want to get across.

So I downloaded the Hadley record:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...

I then plot the most recent record with different start dates:
If I plot the last 10 years (starting January 1998, ending February 2008) I get a totally flat trend.

If I plot the trend starting January 1999 I get a linear trend of 0.009 degrees C per decade.  Taken over the 9 years this is a linear increase of 0.008 degrees C per decade (not 0.2 degrees C per decade as projected for the first two decades in the 21st century by IPCC in its 2007 SPM report).

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 facts show that 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" (if you'll pardon the expression).

MaxOn Drudge hijacks headlines to sell global warming denial posted 1 year, 7 months ago 5 Responses

More temp. trend data for MNG

Hi MNG,

Your post got me to checking out this current "plateau" in global warming (as the IPCC Chairman calls it) in more detail.

I showed you that the trend for the past decade (January 1998 to February 2008) is flat.

I showed you that the trend is almost flat if you start in January 1999.

Now I also checked the 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

Looks flat to me no matter how you slice it.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

MNG, is global warming over?

Hi MNG,

You can continue your discussion on pH of the ocean with Black Wallaby, but maybe you and I can move to another topic: i.e. that of observed actual "global warming".

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 convince yourself, 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.

What do you think, MNG?  Has "rampant" global warming really stopped?  Is the AGW bubble about to burst?

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Don't worry about ocean pH, MNG

Hi MNG,

See in your discussion with Black Wallaby that you are apparently concerned about possible future lowering of ocean pH due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

I've seen many "predictions" of future changes in ocean pH but very few actual measurements of what is really going on today to support these forecasts for the future.

The site below provides some good information.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#how_ ...

I have quoted the conclusion below:
"How acidic are the oceans?
As this map suggests, ocean pH measurements have been done all over the world and in the most unlikely places. The false colour scale on the right suggests a range from 7.9 to 8.2 (personally I have measured a wider range from 7.8 to 8.3). The lowest pH occurs in upwelling areas whereas highest pH occurs in the centres of ocean gyres.

From this extensive mix it would be difficult to state what the 'average' pH is for the oceans, let alone whether the oceans have become more or less acidic.

Note that upwelling areas are more acidic because high-CO2 bottom water surfaces, warms up and makes CO2 more readily available, a bonus for photosynthesis by marine plankton."

The key conclusion here is "one cannot really say that the ocean has become more or less acidic".

So there is probably much less to worry about than some alarmists would have us believe.

Hope this bit of good news helps allay your concerns.

Regards,

Max
On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Keeping safe

Hi MNG,

Glad we are very safe as regards CO2.

Can't see any reason to believe other species (especially plants!) are in any danger, either, despite some hype out there.

Fortunately we have so many natural checks and balances in the system to keep it that way.

I agree.  It's a good life. Let's enjoy it.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Robco's CO2 analogy

Hi Robco,

Let's carry your "fill the car with CO2 analogy" a step further: "Okay, Fill a plastic bag with CO2 from a tank (I know it doesn't come from the car's tailpipe; you just love the red-herrings, don't you?) and stick it over your head."

With this brilliant statement you have shown me that CO2 is "pollution".

Filling your car up with clean drinking water (with or without red herrings) while you are sitting inside would not be too smart, right?

So I supposed clean drinking water is also "pollution", right?

Believe I am beginning to see how your logic works.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Some temp. facts for Robco1

Hi Robco1,

Yesterday you wrote me: "Over the past decade global temp. has increased dramatically, in line with the worst projections from credible scientists."

I sent you the links to the Hadley and UAH globally averaged surface and tropospheric land and sea temperature records, so you could check some actual data (not just "the worst projections from credible scientists").  

Did you download the record for "the past decade" (i.e.the period 1998-2008)?

Did you copy the data into Excel and establish the linear trend line over this period?

Did you see that the trend line is flat?

You should do this before you make claims about dramatic increases in global temp. over the past decade.

Keeps you from shooting yourself in the foot with incorrect statements.

Just a tip.

Regards,

Max
On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Cancer link is robust

Hi MNG,

Agree with you that not everyone who exposes him/herself to UV radiation will get cancer.  

The case studies based on actual patients have shown, though, that incidence is much higher for melanoma among those individuals who had sunburn during childhood/adolescence; likewise, the incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer is linked to the level and degree of exposure to ultraviolet radiation.  (Sort of like the studies linking smoking and lung cancer.)

This is what I would call a pretty robust cause/effect relationship.

Regards,

Max
On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Sounds good, MNG, but...

Sounds pretty good, MNG, until you consider that the "association between sun exposure and skin cancer" is extremely robust while the "association between greenhouse gases and climate change" (i.e. increased incidence of intense tropical storms and other severe weather events) is not very robust at all.  In fact, it is very weak or even non-existent.

So staying away from excessive UV exposure to avoid the risk of skin cancer as an individual makes excellent sense, while attempting reduce the risk of hurricanes and other severe weather events by reducing global CO2 emissions does not.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Robco1 gets it wrong again

Wrong again, Robco, when you say: "Just because it occurs naturally does not mean it can't be a pollutant. As you well know, CO2 is pollution when you have too much. Don't believe me? Fill your car with CO2 and sit inside with the windows shut. Which you must already be doing to come up with a series of factual errors."

Sorry Robco, looks like the "red herring" is yours.  Here's a brief lesson in Chemistry 101:  when you sit in your car and fill it with exhaust gas it is NOT CO2 that kills you.  It is CO.  (That's carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide).  Got the difference?

CO2 could be dangerous to humans above 5,000 ppmv, but there is not enough fossil fuel on this planet to ever reach this level in the atmosphere.

Over the past decade (1998-2008) CO2 has gone up steadily but global temp has not increased at all, as you claim.  Check the records:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...

Plot it for yourself and you will see that the linear trend is flat.

The "worst projections from credible scientists" said it should increase by 0.2 degrees C per decade for the first two decades in the 21st century.  Looks like they were flat out wrong, Robco, doesn't it?

You wrote: "The key words there are `honest' and `credible.' You folks should try to become familiar with them sometime."

This statement is a bit fuzzy.  Tell me what you are trying to say here, Robco.  

Were the incorrect projections of your "credible scientists" "honest" and "credible"?

Face it, your argumentation is full of holes, Robco1.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Don't delay progress

Hey Robco1,

Just so you know where I stand on "delaying progress", here is what I wrote on another Grist thread.

I am certainly NOT in favor of being a "delayer" when it comes to:
·    Improving energy efficiency in power generation (i.e. revamping or replacing old inefficient plants with newer plants)
·    Reducing waste on all levels
·    Reducing real air and water pollution (not CO2 emissions)
·    Reducing dependency on imported oil coming from politically unstable regions
·    Improving fuel efficiency of automobiles
·    Developing new energy-efficient sources of automotive fuels
·    Developing and installing more cost-effective renewable power generation sources
·    Building more nuclear power plants, and ensuring these are safe, of course)
·    Developing new fast breeder technology
·    Developing nuclear fusion technology
·    Etc.
But I am in favor of being a "delayer" when it comes to the implementation of draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes, which will cost everyone a lot of money and will make some people, organizations, hedge funds or money shufflers rich, but will accomplish none of the above.

Hope this clears it up for you.

But this is all sort of off the topic of this thread, which has to do with an analogy of skin cancer with AGW.

Regards,

MaxOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Don't delay progress

Hey stinkycheese,

You are spot on.

I am certainly NOT in favor of being a "delayer" when it comes to:
·    Improving energy efficiency in power generation (i.e. revamping or replacing old inefficient plants with newer plants)
·    Reducing waste on all levels
·    Reducing real air and water pollution (not CO2 emissions)
·    Reducing dependency on imported oil coming from politically unstable regions
·    Improving fuel efficiency of automobiles
·    Developing new energy-efficient sources of automotive fuels
·    Developing and installing more cost-effective renewable power generation sources
·    Building more nuclear power plants, and ensuring these are safe, of course)
·    Developing new fast breeder technology
·    Developing nuclear fusion technology
·    Etc.

But I am in favor of being a "delayer" when it comes to the implementation of draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes, which will cost everyone a lot of money and will make some people, organizations, hedge funds or money shufflers rich, but will accomplish none of the above.

Regards,

MaxOn Why did Nature run Pielke's pointless, misleading, embarrassing nonsense? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 17 Responses

Weakness in the analogy

The analogy between skin cancer (caused by exposure of the skin to ultraviolet radiation) and global warming (caused by increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide) is, at first glance, compelling.

The analogy is made, "the sunlightscam website talks about how there is an enormous conspiracy between dermatologists and sunscreen manufacturers to promote this scam. It's all about the money. That's just like the conspiracy between climate scientists and politicians to create the fake problem of climate change."

Leaving aside the "conspiracy chatter", we see that there are some basic differences if we dig a bit deeper into the facts,.

These relate to the "levels of evidence" (linking the cause with the effect).
http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/cancernet/304733.html

The evidence linking the incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer to the level and degree of exposure to ultraviolet radiation is provided by
·    Controlled trials
·    Case-control analytic studies
·    Opinion of experts based on clinical experience

The evidence linking the incidence of cutaneous melanoma to the incidence of exposure to sunburns, especially in childhood and adolescence is provided by
·    Case-control analytic studies
·    Ecologic studies with a cancer incidence link
·    Opinion of experts based on clinical experience

In other words, the evidence is in the form of observed effects directly linked to actual physical causes.  

A description of one case-control study shows how a sample of subjects "were interviewed about their lifetime sun exposure, including exposure to the site of the squamous cell carcinoma (sites for controls were assigned randomly). Analysis was restricted to 132 cases and 1,031 controls born in Australia and with no ancestors from southern Europe. The total site-specific exposure was strongly related to risk of melanoma; the odds ratio increased to a maximum of 3.3 at 65,000 hr of exposure before falling slightly. Site-specific exposure during childhood and adolescence was more strongly associated with SCC than exposure during adulthood. The number of blistering sunburns to the site was positively associated with SCC. Use of sunscreens and hats showed inconsistent effects. Sun exposure, especially during childhood and adolescence, increases the risk of SCC."
http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/cgi-bin/mycite?ExtRef=ICDB/983 ...

There have been many such studies, all showing an observed direct link between skin cancer and exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

In the case of anthropogenic global warming we are missing this direct link.  

The link is suggested by the greenhouse theory and computer generated climate model studies, which project future changes in globally averaged land and sea surface temperatures, based on projected future atmospheric concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. These are then linked to projections of a higher incidence of more intense tropical storms more severe weather events and accelerating sea level rise in the future.  These possible future developments are said to be "likely" or "more likely than not" to occur as a result of human influence based on "expert opinion rather than attribution studies".

In effect we are comparing observed physical evidence with conjecture based on theory and the virtual reality of computer models.

This is the key difference and, therefore, the key weakness in this analogy.

Max

In other words, the evidence is in the form of actually observed effects directly linked to physical causes.  

In the case of anthropogenic global warming we are missing this direct link.  The link is provided by the greenhouse theory and computer generated climate model studies, which project future changes in globally averaged land and sea surface temperatures, which are then linked to predictions of a higher incidence of more intense tropical storms more severe weather events and accelerating sea level rise.  These possible future developments are said to be "likely" or "more likely than not" to occur based on "expert opinion rather than attribution studies".

This is the key difference and, therefore, the key weakness in this analogy.On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Hi Andrew

Hi Andrew,

Nice to hear from you.  I'm sure the "lurkers" can understand your point, as you say.

Yeah.  I read all the latest IPCC stuff (no "huff", though).

Guess if their next reports come out in 2013, we'll know more by then about the current "temperature plateau" (as their Chairman calls it) and whether this was the start of a long term flattening or even downturn of the curve.  Maybe IPCC will even share some thoughts on what caused it.

Regards,

Max
On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 8 months ago 173 Responses

Flawed analogies

In the first comment to this new thread benp hit the nail right on the head.

Andrew Dessler has an uncanny talent for shooting himself in the foot over and over again with flawed analogies between all sorts of real and imagined problems and the current AGW concerns.

As benp pointed out very succinctly, Andrew uses this ploy to try to get a point across without having to defend the real arguments.

Max
On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 8 months ago 173 Responses

Taxes as solutions to problems

GonzoDon raised some interesting questions.

There have undoubtedly been periods in history where taxes were implemented to finance a specific solution or political course of action.

Forgetting the classical example of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire (both of which came about to a great extent due to taxes), one can look at U.S. history.

The first federal income tax was imposed in 1862 to finance the costs of the Civil War.  It was repealed in 1872.

Shortly before WWI Congress reenacted a federal income tax, which was then increased to finance WWI.  This one never got repealed.

During the Great Depression the top marginal tax rate was increased in an effort to "level" the wealth between rich and poor and to finance large public works projects to help reduce massive unemployment.

And during WWII the rates were increased again, this time to finance the costs of the war.  Payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments were also implemented to accelerate tax revenue cash flow.  

Since 1935, the Social Security "tax" is actually a federally mandated retirement savings plan or "social insurance program", covering the benefits for retirement, disability, survivorship, and death.

In 1965 Medicare and Medicaid were added to provide medical insurance coverage for seniors and indigent patients, and in 1972 the coverage was extended to ceratin disabled persons under the age of 65.

So yes, these "taxes" were all enacted to "solve a problem".

The gasoline "taxes" go toward financing the roadways, so are actually more of a "user's fee" than a real tax.

The proposed "carbon tax" would be a similar tax on all carbon-containing fossil fuels, but what would they, in fact, finance?  And even more important, what "problem" would these taxes solve?

Cap and trade schemes are even less transparent.  These caps supposedly generate a market value for carbon.   It is clear who will pay for all of this (everyone).  Who will be the beneficiary is a bit less apparent.  These schemes will undoubtedly earn a lot of money for some individuals, companies, hedge funds and other money shufflers.   Platitudes such as "the atmosphere is owned by all humanity" are being used to justify these schemes as a part of an "equitable, ethical and politically effective climate policy".  The question must again be asked: what specific "problem" would these schemes solve?

GonzoDon is correct in his statement.  The Civil War, WWI, the Great Depression,WWII, public health care for the elderly, the disabled and the indigent, building and maintaining the roadway network are all examples of real problems and issues that were "solved" by providing adequate financing through taxation.

In the case of a climate policy including carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes to "solve" global warming it is not evident:
·    That global warming is indeed a real problem that needs to be "solved"
·    That the proposed political action (tax or cap and trade) will have any net beneficial effect

To me that is the big difference.

Max
On Why did Nature run Pielke's pointless, misleading, embarrassing nonsense? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 17 Responses

josullivan58 has a memory problem?

Hey josullivan58,

Maybe you really do have a short-term memory problem.

Suggest you scroll up to 20 Mar and read the following message you sent:

Don't feed the trolls

manacker and his sock puppet black wallaby are applying lesson 1 and lesson 2 from Nexus 6
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/03/lesson-1.html
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/03/lesson-2.html

Discussing climate science with black wallaby/manacker is like discussing evolutionary biology with creationists or discussing the health effects of smoking with a tobacco company spokesman.

by josullivan58 at 2:47 PM on 20 Mar 2008

But don't worry, josullivan58.  I am not angry with you (don't know whether my "sock puppet", Black Wallaby is angry with you - maybe you can ask him).

Regards,

MaxOn The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

LegumeSam does not wish to debate

LegumeSam writes: "I have no intention of debating trolls, especially those whose posts are full of ad hominems and other sh*t."

Let's analyze this:

"Trolls"?  Oh-oh, smells of ad hom put down.  For shame!

"Other sh*t".  Tsk, tsk. Such poor language!

To which ad homs was LS referring?

LegumeSam is full of "legumes", all right.

Rather than debating issues, LS prefers the fallacy of "ad hom attacks".

Makes sense.  It avoids the real issues and is less likely to expose that there is no real argument than a real debate would.

MaxOn Why did Nature run Pielke's pointless, misleading, embarrassing nonsense? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 17 Responses

Sicks and stones for josullivan58

Hey Josullivan58,

It's getting late here, but since you have responded to my post, thought I would help clear your memory before retiring.

I had always assumed you were rather young, but in light of your apparent memory lapses, I may have been wrong, i.e. "I don't think I wrote those things. I have never even heard of the expression `sock puppet'".  So I thought I would refresh your memory.

On 20 Mar you wrote in an eloquent treatise referring to me and Black Wallaby "Don't feed the trolls".  You also wrote "manacker and his sock puppet Black Wallaby".

On 1 Mar on the gristmill "Hurricane" thread you wrote, again in referring to me that "trolls get paid by the comment".

On 1 Feb on the "Climate change is real" site you opined, "it's amazing how arrogant manacker is".

On 10 Feb, again on the "Hurricane" thread you pointed out that "manacker is firmly in the 38% of people not entitled to have an opinion"

On 24 Jan on the "Inhofe skeptic of the day" thread you told the world that manacker is a "black knight" and that "manacker hates freedom".

And finally on 27 Dec on Andrew Dessler's infamous and totally bogus "Inhofe 400" site you explained in referring to me that "contrarians" don't have facts on their side.

It's OK, though jo.  Don't fret.  I'm not angry with you.

As the old saying goes, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but ad hom attacks cannot hurt me".

Regards,

MaxOn The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Skeptics can be convinced by facts

"Skeptics can be convinced by the facts."

One the one hand we have "tipping point" predictions (to be reached when atmospheric CO2 levels reach 450 ppmv?).

Arrhenius and Stefan-Boltzman tell us the increase from today's value to 450 ppmv will cause a whopping 0.16 degree C temperature increase.

On the other hand we have the fact that over the most recent 10-year period since 1998 there has been no linear trend of warming in either the troposphere (UAH record) or at the surface (Hadley record).
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...

As a rational skeptic I can be convinced by the facts.  

I just do not happen to believe that Hansen's predictions have anything to do with "facts".

Max
On Please stop calling them 'skeptics' posted 1 year, 8 months ago 40 Responses

Response to josullivan58

Hey josullivan58,

You asked for examples.

Just going through some recent gristmill sites, you have called me (and what you call my "sock puppet, Black Wallaby") a "troll", written that I am "arrogant", that I "hate freedom", am a "black knight" or a "contrarian" and am "part of the 38% that are not entitled to have an opinion".

These are all "ad hominem" arguments, which Wikipedia describes in its section covering "fallacies" as consisting "of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

Wikipedia goes on to say, "The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. Many times, an opponent's use of an ad hominem attack is an indication that the opponent realizes that the argument itself is correct and cannot be refuted."

Maybe you would like to point out where you feel that I have been guilty of the same on occasion.

Regards,

MaxOn The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Thanks MGN

Thanks for summary from an unbiased observer.

MaxOn The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

JCross' last obfuscation

Hi John,

You just wrote: "Max:  I note that your only reply to my points was to continue to misquote the IPCC report.  
And I note that you have completely ignored the whole "honest mistake" equal "cherry picked".  That still requires some explanation.  I look forward to more conversations on this in the future."

Sorry, John, that is not how debating an issue works.

Please refer to my post of 31 March, 5:55PM for a summary.

I presented an argument (IPCC ignored reports when making its claim).  I backed this argument with three premises, which I proved with backup references.

From this I drew the conclusion that my argument was well founded.

In an attempt to refute this, you countered with four premises.

Two of these were irrelevant to the discussion (other similar reports included, review period still open), which I pointed out to you.

The other two were incorrect (deadline missed, range of error included), as I pointed out to you in detail.

Your gambit has been to obfuscate by bringing in new waffles and premises (moving goalposts, slightly pregnant, misquoting IPCC, relevance of cherry pick vs. mistake), in order to drag this discussion on ad nauseum rather than accepting that you have been unable to refute my original argument or premises.

In addition, Black Wallaby has shown you in excruciating detail how and why IPCC selectively picked "IPCC message friendly" spot studies (showing mass loss) while, at the same time, rejecting or ignoring more relevant but "IPCC message unfriendly" studies (showing mass gain over the entire 11-year period).

John, I cannot force you to step up and act like a man by admitting you lost this one.

But I also do not intend to play your "obfuscation ad nauseum" game.  By the way, this is listed as one of the fallacies used in debating an issue.

Sorry, game over.  You lost.

Regards,

MaxOn The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Sorry, John

Sorry John, all of your obfuscating and waffling cannot change the fact that you lost this debate.

You have been unable to disprove my argument, based on the premises that I showed.

IPCC claimed "mass loss".

Wingham/Davis showed "mass gain".

Therefore, IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) Wingham/Davis.

Duh!

If you want to move on to Greenland, OK.

If you want to end this discussion, that is fine with me.

It appears to be a waste of time for both of us.

Regards,

MaxOn The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Identifying JCross' fallacies

Hi John,

Since you apparently like the more formal approach of identifying "fallacies", let's play your game.

My "argument" is that IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) the conclusions of one or more published reports, which directly contradicted its claim.

The first "premise" is that IPCC made a claim of net mass loss of the Antarctic Ice Sheet equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the time period 1993-2003. (Proof of this "premise" is the 2007 SPM report.)

The second "premise" is that Davis et al made continuous measurements of the AIS over the entire time frame of the IPCC claim, and that they concluded that these measurements showed a net mass gain of the AIS over this period. (Proof of this "premise" is the written Davis et al report.)

A third "premise" is that Wingham used these same continuous measurements of the AIS over the entire time frame of the IPCC claim and added calculated estimates for marginal regions that could not be measured accurately; Wingham also concluded that there was a net mass gain of the AIS over this period. (Proof of this "premise" is the written Wingham et al report.)

The "conclusion" is that in making its claim of net mass loss of the Antarctic Ice Sheet equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the time period 1993-2003, IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) the conclusions of one or more published reports (Davis/Wingham), which both directly contradicted its claim. (Proof is provided by the three premises, which show that the claim by IPCC is incompatible with the conclusions of the reports.)

You countered with a first premise that Wingham was published after the initial deadline for reports to be included and was not included for this reason.

Since there were several other reports on this subject that were published after the initial deadline, yet were considered by IPCC, it is apparent that IPCC did not consider its initial deadline to be an "absolute" deadline, beyond which no reports could be considered, therefore, in fact, it was not a deadline at all.  This is the fallacy of your first premise.

Your second premise is that Wingham was published before the close of the review period for Expert Reviewers.  This argument has no direct relevance, and in no way refutes the conclusion or any of the premises I listed.

Your third premise is that the IPCC has published work in the past that was very similar to Wingham.  This argument also has no direct relevance, and in no way refutes the conclusion or any of the premises I listed.

Your fourth premise is that while IPCC made a claim that was in direct contradiction with the conclusions of the two reports (Davis/Wingham), i.e. "mass loss" instead of "mass gain", the fact that IPCC worded its claim in such a way to include a "range of error" that could be construed to include the "range of error" of the two reports shows that IPCC did not ignore (or reject or refuse to accept as correct) the conclusions of the Davis/Wingham reports.

This premise is weak for three reasons:
·    The claim made is a claim of a "net mass loss", regardless of the margin of error
·    The reports whose conclusions were ignored (or rejected or refused to be accepted as correct) concluded that there was a "net mass gain"
·    The margin of error of the IPCC claim does not include the entire margin of error of the Davis/Wingham reports, in other words it ignores (or rejects or refuses to accept as correct) both the conclusions and the margin of error as concluded by these reports.

In other words, it is clear that none of your premises has been able to refute any the premises I made or the conclusion of my argument that in making its claim of net mass loss of the Antarctic Ice Sheet equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the time period 1993-2003, IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) the conclusions of one or more published reports (Davis/Wingham), which both directly contradicted its claim.

The fallacy here in your "argument" is that the premises you have given for your conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support required to refute my stated premises and conclusion. As shown above, two are totally irrelevant and the other two are unsound due to errors in reasoning.

Hope this clears it up for you.

Regards,

Max
On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

John's "killer argument"

Hi John,

Let's look at your "killer" argument:

"the range of values published by the IPCC includes the number that they are supposed to be ignoring"

Davis reports a range of -5 to +85Gt/year
This is based on millions of ESA satellite altimetry data points taken continuously over the entire time frame of the study.
(Wingham adds in calculated estimates for marginal areas, using the same data.)  
Both reports show a significant net mass gain over the entire period.

IPCC reports a range of sea level change of -56 to +14 mm/year which equals
a range of -194 to +50Gt/year (i.e. a net loss of -77±127 Gt/year)
This is based on (who knows?) a cobbled together record, including a PORTION of Davis' range, none of Wingham's input,and a bunch of spot studies, which all together cover at best 13 months of the entire 11-year time frame, all cobbled together to (voila!) show a net mass loss rather than a net mass gain.

So much for your "killer" argument.

1. It does not include all of Davis' range.

2. It is a "cobbled together" range based on adding up, averaging and adjusting "apples" with other fruit (including some "cherries?"), i.e. it is meaningless.

Regards,

Max
On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

A question for MNG

Sorry to bother you again, MNG

Does this causal context [ x causes y, thus if y, then x ] also work in the negative sense (assuming we are not talking about an illogical relationship)?

An example:

X = Globally averaged sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate
Y = Low lying islands (Maldives) become inundated

If globally averaged sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate
Then
Low lying islands (Maldives) become inundated

Low lying islands (Maldives) are NOT becoming inundated
Therefore
Globally averaged sea levels are NOT rising at an accelerating rate

Is this one logical?

Regards,

MaxOn The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Bill Gates is rich

Thanks for your input, MosterNice Guy.

How about this one?

If Bill Gates is rich, then he has a lot of money.

Bill Gates has a lot of money.
Therefore, Bill Gates is rich.

Does this one work better for you?

Regards,

MaxOn The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Some circular A-B logic for JCross

Hey John,

Still trying to cut through your "logic" double talk.

The argument "if A then B" is logical, then "B therefore A" is not logically valid.

Let's say A: If (A) it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it swims like a duck, then (B) it is a duck.

Now let's go to B: It (B) is a duck, therefore (A) it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it swims like a duck.

Sounds logically valid to me John.  Do you have any problems with this?  If so, what?

Regards,

Max
On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses