Climate4You Update: Ole Humlum

Dear Jennifer.

Please find below a link which will take you directly to the monthly newsletter (ca. 1.8 MB) with meteorological information updated to February 2012:

All temperatures in this newsletter are shown in degrees Celsius.

Previous issues (since March 2009) of the newsletter, diagrams and additional material are available on

All the best,
Ole Humlum

Ole Humlum, Professor of Physical Geography
University of Oslo, Norway

34 Responses to Climate4You Update: Ole Humlum

  1. Debbie March 19, 2012 at 8:07 am #

    I have to giggle at the graph that shows the lack of correlation between C02 levels and temp.
    It is however interesting that there was a particular time frame when it was possible to plot a correlation.
    Time and real data is now indicating that it may have been a co incidence because this research is showing a negative result.
    Who knows?
    This one seems to indicate that C02 is NOT the key driver as it was formerly hypothesised.
    I’m sure the incessant political PR spin will have plenty to say however 🙂

  2. Luke March 19, 2012 at 8:38 am #

    Yep that’s right Debs – the Earth just goes on a random walk for no reason.

  3. Debbie March 19, 2012 at 9:00 am #

    Really Luke?
    I’m sure there is a plethora of reasons.
    A short stroll through cyber space delivers literally thousands of them 🙂
    It’s not about the science Luke….very unfortunately.
    And I’m still giggling 🙂

  4. toby March 19, 2012 at 9:16 am #

    “What exactly defines the critical length of a relevant time period to consider for evaluating the alleged high importance of CO2 remains elusive. However, the length of the critical period must be inversely proportional to the importance of CO2 on the global temperature, including possible feedback effects. So if the net effect of CO2 is strong, the length of the critical period is short, and vice versa.”..

    Luke talks of “random walks”, when in fact the evidence clearly shows no real warming since 1998 and if you consider the pinatobo cooling effect in the early 90’s, you can argue a lack of warming now for close to two decades…despite continual increases in the wicked co2 trace gas…….celebrate Luke, we are not doomed, the rather pleasant warming we have seen has allowed us to feed more people and fewer people have died from the cold. Clearly/ most likely co2 does not have a significant forcing effect…certainly you would have to be sceptical at the very least…surely?

  5. Mark A March 19, 2012 at 9:51 am #

    the Earth just goes on a random walk for no reason.

    Not necessarily, we just don’t know enough and it was easy and politically convenient to find a correlation with CO2.

  6. spangled drongo March 19, 2012 at 10:57 am #

    Looks like what they thought was a peak is “worse than we thought”:

  7. spangled drongo March 19, 2012 at 11:10 am #

    How random would ya like it?

  8. spangled drongo March 19, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    This gets pretty random too. Billions of years of random walking and GHE nowhere in sight. But keep looking, it must be there somewhere:

  9. toby March 19, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    SD, you sure do need to be worried about our unprecedented warming when you look at the real science link…and see …..that temps are actually cold at the moment……..thank goodness for a bit of additional co2 warming us up a bit and allowing us to grow more food to feed our rapidly growing global population….how about we started focusing on a real problem…..population growth…..and finite resources

  10. spangled drongo March 19, 2012 at 12:21 pm #

    The trouble is Toby, there’s no money in real problems.

    But there’s good money in fake problems:

  11. el gordo March 19, 2012 at 2:04 pm #

    Interesting read on sexual discrimination Spangles…I suspect the Bolter’s story on sea level may be more appropriate.

  12. Bob_FJ March 19, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

    Luke, what a treasure you are! Awesomely, you give such profound statements as quoted in full from above; it’s like being on a new learning curve for us:

    Yep that’s right Debs – the Earth just goes on a random walk for no reason.

    It’s a great pity that (for instance) you didn’t give such infinite wisdoms on various issues raised with you on the earlier Wendy Carlisle thread, and thus your unstated vast understanding such as on polar bears and whatnot is a sore disappointment to be missed by us all.

  13. Neville March 19, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    David Evans has a new PDF testing the IPCC projections/models against real data. Page 7 has an error though SLR should read 33cm per century not 3.3 cm.

  14. Neville March 19, 2012 at 3:27 pm #

    Heres some good stuff for Luke from Scientific American. This joker longs for a one world govt with much stricter enforcable rules and suspended democracy.

    The full totalitarian state, by now Lukey must be smacking his chops and drooling at such an attractive possibility.

  15. Debbie March 19, 2012 at 3:45 pm #

    ‘It’s the social engineering that’s the killer’
    My my….how deliciously ironic.
    That just about says it all.
    It also appears he didn’t mean it to be such a telling pun.
    I guess we all know how much funding that our present Govt has put into ‘Deliberative Global Governance’ especially Rudd in 2007?
    Stephen Karoly (sp?) at the ANU has been one of the main benefactors.
    There’s a dedicated blog page etc to it as well.
    And no surprise, Bob Brown and the Greens are a huge fan of this…right up there for all to see last time I looked at their website & policies (mind you that was quite some time ago and I have no interest in going back…it scared the bejesus out of me!)

  16. spangled drongo March 19, 2012 at 6:34 pm #

    EG, I’m a bit like the climate. I take a random walk a bit too often looking everywhere for GHE.

    Like GWB looking for WMDs.

  17. spangled drongo March 19, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    Here’s another random walk, Lukie:

    Thanks to another brilliant UN decision we did away with great refrigeration and fire fighting solutions at increased cost and inconvenience to the world and what was the result?


    But the GCMs and the govt scientists have got it sussed this time, right?

  18. Luke March 19, 2012 at 8:28 pm #

    Which is why you’re a drongo. Get it inta ya. Spangled drinks arsenic with his weetbix. Don’t be a cissy.

    I wonder how long recovery might take. hmmmmm

  19. hunter March 19, 2012 at 10:19 pm #

    For the black/white world of the believer there is either the straw man of uncaused random walk, or there is CO2. And of course the assumption that all possible influences have been measured and accounted for, and their interactions have been properly measured is an accurate one, in the believer’s need for simple tools to sustain their faith. The problem that CO2 is not the only actor, and that the way CO2 is currently perceived by the consensus, with massive positive feedbacks, is not being supported by good evidence, is dealt with by ridiculing those outside the consensus, gently massaging the data, and massive marketing efforts.

  20. Debbie March 20, 2012 at 10:05 am #

    More ‘assumptions’,
    1) SD is a drongo
    2) Any view that does not align with ‘the consensus’ is poisonous
    3) That we need to recover from something….presumably something to do with the ozone layer (?)

    And how much do these assumptions have to do with genuine, updated, scientific research?

    Once again it seems to have way more to do with politics…which is becoming increasingly unfortunate for everyone involved….including the scientists.

    As Mark A pointed out:
    we just don’t know enough and it was easy and politically convenient to find a correlation with CO2.

    I wonder how long recovery might take? hmmmmm

  21. bazza March 21, 2012 at 9:34 am #

    Deb set the tone withher opening gambit “I have to giggle at the graph that shows the lack of correlation between C02 levels and temp”. Deb, only read on if you have got over your giggling about those pesky periods when the temperature graph intermittently not ever rising like the CO2 one with the wiggles. Not funny for the victims, but they were periods dominated by La Ninas as you well know. Then again it is not unusual to make jokes about what you dont understand.

  22. bazza March 21, 2012 at 11:25 am #

    Cool link Luke on theddecadal trend in USA temperature records. Now about twice as many record highs as lows. I did what Ole Humlum could do, if he wanted to expand and balance his repertoire and have a projection consistent with the physics– extrapolated the trend to 2100 using a polynomial degree 2. The answer is by 2100, high temp records will be outrunning lows by 20 to 1. ( R2=0.97). The estimate is probably conservative as in general, it is harder to break records, the longer the period of record if there is no trend or discontinuity, (for example topically, if you ditched your textile bathers for the hi tech poly stuff).

  23. toby March 21, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    Bazza, wouldnt you expect more high temperatures if the world had warmed up?

    on geological time scales it is quite clear that co2 does not lead temp change but lags it. I am not aware that this is ever disputed except by Al Gore?
    if you look at the warming since the turn of last century there are as many periods when temp declined despite co2 increasing as there were where it increased.

    It is also worth considering that if co2 is such a dominant forcing, the period needed to show the link should be relatively small.
    We have had no real warming since 1998 and yet co2 has increased considerably……surely to a rational person this gives at least some doubt?..infact if we consider the pintabo eruption that cooled temp in teh early 90’s we can really assume no real warming for nearly 2 decades.
    So what were you saying?……..not even a litle doubtful about your faith in the paradigm of CAGW?…if not you really should be because there is so much evidence now that raises doubt that only a fool or a zealot could be anything but a little sceptical….surely?( ocean temp not rising, sea level rise not accelerating, no increase in temps, no hot spot, ice has not dissappeared and infact is increasing in the south etc etc etc )

    And what do you say to the supposed global temp in feb being back below 1980 levels?….that co2 is not storing much heat is it!!?

  24. Luke March 21, 2012 at 1:17 pm #

    “on geological time scales it is quite clear that co2 does not lead temp change but lags it” – err nope !

    does now and did in the PETM

    Temps are increasing – unless you’re into selective stats
    Arctic sea ice is melting
    Antarctic sea ice is both melting spectacularly and freezing depending on which side of the continent you look
    sea level rise doesn’t have to “accelerate”
    cooler Sun and PDO shift will take the top off
    any individual GCM realisation does not have monotonic increases

    in fact you’d want to be sure Toby that it wasn’t still on !!

    “supposed global temp in feb being back below 1980 levels?….that co2 is not storing much heat is it!!” AND that sort of comment is nothing short of TOTALLY stupid – good grief

    and more framing – just slipping that “C” onto AGW. Turn your back and they’re at it again.

    Define “C” – how much – how soon ? Any trends in drought perhaps? PDSI? hmmmm

  25. toby March 21, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    Luke sean has done a pretty good job of destroying you here in relation to ice….

    i thought you or bazza might try the old petm and now trick…but that is 2 possibilities whilst throughout the rest of teh known record co2 clearly lags temp increase……does anybody dispute that?…and as for now how come we have seen so little warming in well over a decade despite co2 rising?…you keep ignoring this….how convenient, better to ignore inconvenient truths………
    Seriously wake up! not sceptical even a bit then you are a zealot or a fool…i dont think you are a fool…but maybe i need to change my mind?

    i dont place much credence in global temps but considering we are now back at 1980 levels and have not seen statistically significant warming for a long time the co2 doesnt seem to be such a dominant forcing after all does it…..

    as for define C, how much how soon….well considering teh scare stories pushed by your mob about no ice, 100m sea lvls ( yes some of your mob have pushed this…and even the 90cm rise is most unlikely dont you think!!?), antarctica temp to rise the most and nearly every other scare story thrown at us…ie himalayan glaciers gone by 2035, no more rain to fill our dams etc etc I think you should be \VERY EMBARRASSED and really should learn to eat some humble pie and acknowledge if you arent sceptical you should be.

  26. Luke March 21, 2012 at 5:02 pm #

    Well you didn’t read my ice rebuttal did you (or think about for more than1 second)

    PETM isn’t a trick – ice cores are NOT a model for what’s now occurring. It’s a stupid analogy.

    Toby – why wouldn’t CO2 lag temp rise in the ice cores – are you that dense? What’s going to happen – do you think a CO2 molecule is going to wake up one Sunday and start producing heat. In ice age cycles orbital variation varies the solar insolation which wakes up the biosphere and the oceans outgas CO2 – so what? that would have to be the most stupid sceptic argument ever used. Means you don’t think about anything.

    100m sea levels rises – err nope – IPCC now here near that sceptic fabrication

    Himalayas might be cruisin but the bulk of the world’s glaciers aren’t for heaven sakes. a duh !

    Talk about seeing a single tree in the forest.

    and pity trend is now back to statistical significance – as if you even understand what that means given all significance levels are arbitrary anyway you don’t even know what you’re saying

  27. toby March 21, 2012 at 5:36 pm #

    I cant be bothered to be honest to reply, we always go around in circles and you generally build straw men to knock down. I take it you disagree with all/ most of OLE’s data do you? move along nothing to see here… modernists at their best.
    Its you and your mob that say co2 leads temp….clearly it does not, by all means then argue for why it doesnt…but why say it does when it doesnt over the geological time period!! seriously get a grip man

    where is your rebuttal of seans post? he has made a big effort to show \how foolish you are …go and look……
    we now have the most expensive electricity in the world despite having access to the cheapest energy on earth………why? why is it moral and good to lower all our living standards when you know full well without new technology nothing we do matters.

  28. Robert March 21, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    You say something with grammatical meaning, but otherwise senseless:
    “Arctic sea ice is melting”

    Then you pile verbiage and figures and acronyms around that completely senseless statement, hoping it will acquire sense by mysterious osmosis.

    That’s how it’s done, in the Age of Spin, the Age of GetUp.

  29. Luke March 21, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

    you don’t want to reply coz you’re intellectually lazy.

    Pity that Antarctica is net losing mass eh?

    Most expensive in the world ? maybe not

  30. el gordo March 22, 2012 at 6:58 am #

    Scafetta is being savaged at Watts.

  31. bazza March 22, 2012 at 10:02 am #

    Toby Re” I take it you disagree with all/ most of OLE’s data do you?”. I assume his data is what it says it is. The issues are firstly the occasionally silly bits of curve fitting and bazaar extrapolations and second, the misleading of the innocents and others. It is all a bountiful harvest for cherry pickers devoid of scepticism and avoiding exposing thier beliefs to disconfirming evidence. He even cautions in the text about not reading too much into the short term fluctuations about the rising trends for example.

  32. Debbie March 23, 2012 at 11:01 am #

    Well yes Bazza,
    I have noticed you lack a sense of humour in relation to this topic.
    Doesn’t do anything to damage mine.
    You are making me laugh even more at your attempt to pretend that you ‘care’ more about the ‘victims’ of extreme weather events because you’re a ‘believer’ in AGW and I find the ever mounting numbers of contradictory reports that only prove we don’t know enough yet, highly ironic.
    I have personal experience in just how woefully inadequate the current agenda is in actually achieving anything we could define as ‘worthwhile’ in dealing with helping so called ‘victims’.
    It is only interested in being less accountable and avoiding risk and responsibility NOT in actually doing something practical.
    They just want to waste our time and money proving that they’re right and that we therefore need to pay for their ‘well covered’ arses.
    I’m also laughing out loud at your use of terminology like ‘innocents’

  33. toby March 23, 2012 at 3:16 pm #

    “It is all a bountiful harvest for cherry pickers devoid of scepticism and avoiding exposing thier beliefs to disconfirming evidence.” gotta love that quote Bazza…you do have a sense of humour!
    that is exactly what the warmist movement has done, picked a short period of time and turned it into proof of the evils of co2. correlation is not causation, and even the correlation has been lacking for a decade ( and 1940-1975!?)……If you arent a bit sceptical Bazza, then you are the one devoid of scepticism.

    your mob are causing far more harm than good. The damage being done to the environment by “feel good” platitudes, such as wind farms, solar panels, electric cars, ethanol, carbon price, renewable subsisides et al do far more harm than good.

    To suggest that “your mob” care more than “my mob” is also the height of stupidity since if we didnt waste so much money on this theory we could actually build real hospitals, real wells and raise real living standards around teh world.

    Instead, Australians are being forced to have lower living standards and be able to assist fewer people in need…The platitudes pushed by believers in CAGW come at a great social cost and cause no real benefit. Without new technology we are playing at the edges even if there really is a need to act. And that is still very much up in the air despite the bleatings that “the science is settled”.

Website by 46digital