According to Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese the latest issue of science journal ‘Science’ provides,
“A scientific basis for what the Government was told in its climate change risk and vulnerability report just two months ago”.
And when the 7.30 Report interviewed me they indicated that the science was already settled. So how does this report value add? Is it really definitive? Is the opposition a couple of months behind the government in accepting “the reality of climate change”.
Albanese is reported as stating, “Australia is at risk because of the higher incidence – in this case – the scientists have reported a doubling of category four and five cyclones and hurricanes.”
The same news reports states,
“The research, from the University of Georgia and the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, shows that high-strength cyclones have nearly doubled in 35 years in all five of earth’s ocean basins.
“Global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes,” the researchers said.
However, scientists say they lack enough data to be definitive, because the period studied in the report is too short.
They also say other factors, such as El Nino current or humidity play a role in the intensity of tropical storms.”
Now why didn’t they include the data from the 1940s – the last time the US had lots of intense hurricanes?
Who has read the paper in the new issue of Science?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
There’s a much bigger BASIS for climate chnage than this as discussed ad nauseum in many previous threads. This is just another brick in the wall.
You should put up a reasonable alternative hypothesis for what we’re seeing – we’re all still waiting … de dum de dum de dum (and don’t say I’m bullying – just logical argument – what else might it be on a global scale ??. The Science paper is modest in its claims. It is consistent with what I have said about our regional storms in recent years – Zoe, Nancy, Vance, Ingrid…
The results are enough to keep us concerned. Further work needs to be done. But how lucky (to quote Dirty Harry) do we all feel ??
Jen your 1940s question is ONE basin and time period selected in reasoned in the study. The study is a good piece of work – looks like involvement of Australian expert Greg Holland.
Jen there is nothing that will convince you of anthropogenic global warming – until it’s all over (and then you’ll still be arguing). You are content to sit there with zero alternative explanations. The existing body of evidence continues to mount. The body of criticisms is diminishing.
This has nothing to do with left wing/right wing/ideology rubbish – if the predictions are right and trends any indicator this is a serious long-term issue.
For those who say “oh well the Earth’s climate has changed before” – well not with 6.3B people – and many in tropical and low lying areas it aint. See how much impact oon the world (including energy) a storm like Katrina has caused. Surely we would not like to see occurrences of such beasts more frequently or with greater force.
The Science paper concludes:
Table 1. Change in the number and percentage of hurricanes in categories 4 and 5 for the 15-year periods 1975-1989 and 1990-2004 for the different ocean basins.
Period
Basin 1975-1989
1990-2004
Number Percentage Number Percentage
East Pacific Ocean 36 25 49 35
West Pacific Ocean 85 25 116 41
North Atlantic 16 20 25 25
Southwestern Pacific 10 12 22 28
North Indian 1 8 7 25
South Indian 23 18 50 34
Cyclone intensities around the world are estimated by pattern recognition of satellite features based on the Dvorak scheme (25). The exceptions are the North Atlantic, where there has been continuous aircraft reconnaissance; the eastern North Pacific, which has occasional aircraft reconnaissance; and the western North Pacific, which had aircraft reconnaissance up to the mid-1980s. There have been substantial changes in the manner in which the Dvorak technique has been applied (26). These changes may lead to a trend toward more intense cyclones, but in terms of central pressure (27) and not in terms of maximum winds that are used here. Furthermore, the consistent trends in the North Atlantic and eastern North Pacific, where the Dvorak scheme has been calibrated against aircraft penetrations, give credence to the trends noted here as being independent of the observational and analysis techniques used. In addition, in the Southern Hemisphere and the North Indian Ocean basins, where only satellite data have been used to determine intensity throughout the data period, the same trends are apparent as in the Northern Hemisphere regions.
We deliberately limited this study to the satellite era because of the known biases before this period (28), which means that a comprehensive analysis of longer-period oscillations and trends has not been attempted. There is evidence of a minimum of intense cyclones occurring in the 1970s (11), which could indicate that our observed trend toward more intense cyclones is a reflection of a long-period oscillation. However, the sustained increase over a period of 30 years in the proportion of category 4 and 5 hurricanes indicates that the related oscillation would have to be on a period substantially longer than that observed in previous studies.
We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment (29). This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones (18, 30), although attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.
Phil, could you explain to me just exactly what the author is saying in the last para?
(in my opinion) Numbers of category 4 and 5 storms have gone up as numbers and percentage. Similar finding to Emanuel which is 29. The term “not inconsistet” is understatement. They are saying it is NOT inconsistent with GW but not claiming proof. Just saying that it does match. They are also saying to be fair that to be “sure” a longer study is required given the decadal amd multidecadal ocean temperature cycles that “may” be out there. Some of those may be real or statistical artifacts. The cycles affect cyclone formation too (we think).
Jen asks “is this report definitive…”
“God” isn’t going to give us this story on a plate… you have to decide how credence you give this study (or studies), the various models future predictions, you only have short period of really good records 30 to maybe 100 years, ….you have to decide how much CO2 you’re willing to risk ….??
And if you take it too far it will be 100s of years to remove the extra CO2 from the atmosphere (if ever) given the feedback effects on tundra/permafrost etc.
It’s a really good management call. You can easily flip the cognitive dissonance in and say “of what a load of b/s”…. but if you do be consistent with your other approaches to science data too…
Phil
The title of this blog is ‘politics and the environment’ and sometimes I enjoy a bit of irony.
Wasn’t the Alabnese quote worthy of a little bit of irony?
It is interesting, isn’t it, that every next paper is the definitive work?
Dream on Phil ! Look at the last paragrpah in your posting…
“We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment (29). This trend IS NOT INCONSISTENT with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 MAY increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones (18, 30), ALTHOUGH ATTRIBUTION OF THE 30-YEAR TRENDS TO GLOBAL WARMING WOULD REQUIRE A LONGER GLOBAL DATA RECORD and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.” (my capitals)
In other words the authors are expressing their own doubts about what you claim as proof!
(Climate trends are wonderful things. Pick the start point that you like and the trend can be upward, downward or flat! )
Try also this from Benny Peisner…
What strikes me about the latest Science study on hurricane intensity (here http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/309/5742/1844 and here http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/309/5742/1807) is the apparent failure to assess whether similar periods of storm intensity were observed in the past. This question is, of course, relevant for anyone who wishes to associate the rise in hurricane intensity with global warming. After all, if similar periods of ‘intense’ cyclone and hurricane activity occured when global mean temperatures were significantly lower than today, the alleged correlation between the current warming and storm intensity would be highly questionable.
I had a look at NOAA’s historical hurricane statistics and found that the late 19th century appears to be a period of higher hurricane intensity (as measured by “Accumlated Cyclone Energy”) compared to the late 20th century.
I have attached the empirical evidence (two 35-year sets of ACE data) below and welcome any comments on the validity and possible implications of this comparison.
Benny Peiser
Liverpool John Moores University
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/
————
Accumlated Cyclone Energy (combines the numbers of systems, how long they existed and how intense they became) – http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
1969-2003 1877-1901
ACE ACE
1969 158 1877 73
1970 34 1878 181
1971 97 1879 64
1972 28 1880 131
1973 43 1881 59
1974 61 1882 63
1975 73 1883 67
1976 81 1884 72
1977 25 1885 58
1978 62 1886 166
1979 91 1887 182
1980 147 1888 85
1981 93 1889 104
1982 29 1890 33
1983 17 1891 116
1984 71 1892 116
1985 88 1893 231
1986 36 1894 135
1987 34 1895 69
1988 103 1896 136
1989 135 1897 55
1990 91 1898 113
1991 34 1899 150
1992 75 1900 84
1993 39 1901 93
1994 32 1902 33
1995 227 1903 102
1996 166 1904 25
1997 40 1905 28
1998 182 1906 163
1999 177 1907 13
2000 116 1908 95
2001 106 1909 92
2002 66 1910 64
2003 175 1911 36
35y average
86.6 ACE 93.9 ACE
Or this interview with James O’Brien who, I am sure, knows a lot more than you about hurricanes…
Dr. James J. O’Brien is Director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University, where he is the Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor of Meteorology and Oceanography.
James Glassman: Dr. O’Brien, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina – in fact, within hours after Katrina hit – we heard a good deal of criticism, mostly from supporters of the Kyoto Protocol that the President and others had not done enough to stop global warming and that this hurricane was, in some way, caused by global warming. You are an expert on hurricanes: do you think that global warming has had an affect on the intensity of hurricanes?
Dr. James O’Brien: Absolutely not. All of the people who are hurricane scientists or teach about hurricanes at the graduate level that I’ve talked to agree with me.
Glassman: So the notion that the global warming advocates have – which is that there’s more carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere which warms the surface of the earth, this is a phenomenon that’s basically been increasing during the century.
O’Brien: Right.
Glassman: You would expect to have a fairly regular increase in hurricanes.
O’Brien: Well, let me give them some due, OK? Their contention is that the ocean is warming up and if the ocean warms up, we should expect stronger storms, OK? That’s a reasonable theory.
Glassman: Right.
O’Brien: The problem is, what I’ve also looked into, is that if you actually – and they sort of believe that the sea water in the globe has warmed up about a half degree centigrade in the last 50 years or so…. But what’s amazing is if you actually looked at the trends in the Atlantic Ocean – the region where hurricanes form from five north to 20 north – from Africa over to the United States, it’s actually cooling down. So, I mean yes, there are hotspots in the globe which are warming up, but not in the Atlantic hurricane formation region. So, their theory doesn’t really hold water.
By the way, Phill, when you have a moment perhaps you’d like to tell us what effect wind direction and speed has on temperature.
Finally, this fixation of yours about needing an alternative explanation… For what? The kind of warming that’s been exceeded before, the number of storms that’s been exceeded before, the melting ice that’s been exceeded before. Why do you need an explanation when we can point to previous instances??
regards
John – who says it’s absolute proof – it’s not inconsistent with …. and another little bit lining up the same way….you guys wouldn’t acknowledge GW facts if they exploded in your face.
I am absolutley fascinated how you guys jump like banshees onto reasonably expressed and fair uncertainty – “screaming SEE IT’S WRONG !!!!”
Jen – I don’t care what Albanese says – betcha he hasn’t read it from the comments made. And Labor wouldn’t do anything about the issue seriously anyway. They’d just go along with the current lot. (so don’t worry yo’all – it’s only us fanatics here arguing – the govt won’t disappoint you)
do yourself a favour and read the papers slowly and calmly. Don’t cherry pick to suit your point of view. And quoting a “real expert” as you have proves nothing – the researchers in these papers are eminent in their field. Find out who they actually are and where Emanuel is from on the supporting paper….. They have done detailed analysis in the details not quoting bulk numbers unanalysed as you have.
So O’Brien has an alternative paper ??
The problem with you anti guys is that you have not ONE SINGLE decent hypothesis of explaining what you are observing, GLOBALLY, in a wide body of evidence …. nothing …
(and John – we’re not talking numbers of storms total which tells me you haven’t read nor understood anything – and we’re talking this instance of GW with well understood physics, good science and a fair body of observed data – so it does behove you to say where it is all wrong and what else it might be … )
Jen your point of view is simply ideological. What is just what you’re accsuing Lowe of… the so called evidence based approach is only when you wnat it be … to prove that the industry position is always right.
No I take that back – “my observations are not inconsistent with that hypothesis”
OK Phil, you win, I agree that attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record.
I could be wrong though, I am no great intellectual.
Back to the Latham Diaries
I thought the data for classified ie rated hurricanes goes back to the 1850’s Does anyone have a plot of this data.?
I wouldnt mind betting that if taken over the full period ie 150 years, the variation is not as extreme as it is being made out to be.
But then I am a cynic
Malcolm – if you read the Science paper – there are reasons why just a simple analysis of numbers or broad categories are not really that insightful – the modern (last 30 years) record has satellite and areoplane observations which yield much more data.
This current debate is not about numbers – but whether there is an increase in the higher speed cyclone category – the recent Emanuel and also Webster et al papers are saying there is. Webster etg al are saying there is in ALL basins not just the Atlantic.
But one cannot be definitive given possible decadal influences. However they do indicate the “data are not inconsistent with ……”
Interestingly the numbers are still in the right direction and line up with other evidence that is “enough to make global warming interested persons concerned”.
All this *not inconsistent with..* and then *No I take that back – “my observations are not inconsistent…* hardly constitutes “another brick in the wall”.
Mate, this Latham character, what a disaster! and people actually VOTED for him, he could have been PRIME MINISTER, can you BELIEVE it?
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
I found this data set of the ratings of all hurricanes since 1850. It reveals no real change in frequency of occurrence or magnitude,when taken over the full 150 years. Sure, the more recent records may have a different quality factor about them, but from this data one couldnt assume that things are any different.
Well when we stop saying “not inconsistent with ” – lovely phrase really – we will have the “full wall of bricks”… scientists will then call it (you guys will STILL argue of course)
– but we may be sorry if we wait that long. I guess some of us will indeed see should we live another 30 years.
And Latham might be a disaster for Labor but I thought you good ol’ boys would be very happy with things as they’re turning out.
Malcolm – that’s just US hurricanes you are quoting –
Webster et al all are talking ALL oceans of the world (hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones)- all basins – we didn’t have satellites back in 1850 and a number of major storms may have occurred undetected. And our ability to determine their true strength would have also been limited. The Atlantic would the least spectacular of the Webster et al data sets.
Number of Cat 4 and Act 5 hurricanes between 1975-1989 and 1990-2004.
East Pacific Ocean 36 to 49
West Pacific 85 to 116
North Atlantic 16 to 25
Southwestern Pacific 10 to 22
North Indian 1 to 7
South Indian 23 to 50
We even had a close to tropical cyclone in the South Atlantic !!!
As I have previously said from personal observation – tropical cyclones in our region in recent years have been very fast – Ingrid, Zoe, Nancy and Vance.
And global ocean warming also matches with the recent breakthrough modelling studies by Tim Barnett which independently simulated the current ocean warming from a number of different approaches.
We’ve recently had the tropospheric data breakthrough with satellite and radiosondes showing a now warming troposphere.
El Nino frequency (which brings droughts to Australia) has changed with more Los Ninos and less Las Ninas.
The Queensland coastal Coral Sea tropical cyclone climate has almost disappeared but only near the coast. Big storms are still whizzing around out there.
Global temperature records continue to be broken (a broken record alone constitutes not much and is indeed expected) but twhen they’re all in the last 10 years and that continues you have a trend.
Glaciers in the main worldwide are melting. Greenland glaciers have recently doubled in speed.
Antartica glaciers are melting and ice shelve breaking up.
Species are moving zones and many are active earlier in the season.
The ducks continue to line up … and in the one direction …
So guys – the wall is half bricked and GROWING ….
Science mag says “We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes”
Peter Webster of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta says the frequency has not increased but the intensity has.
NOAH records indicate a slight lessening of frequency and intensity of storms hitting the US.
Based on the above evidence what action could be *reasonably* taken?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16644292%255E2702,00.html
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
Webster’s and also Emanuel’s paper both report similar things. Webster is all ocean basins. Not just USA.
As I have said their analyses are more rigorous than basic stats in the NOAA URL (that’s NOAA). And you have problems before the satellite era with numbers – you could miss storms and not know !?
What action ? well given we seem to powerless to reduce global emissions (or unwilling) I would commend that we invest signficantly in monitoring the current climate system and climate modelling research to further understand the risks. We need contingency scenarios for bigger storms and we should identify areas of vulnerability (i.e. the now obvious New Orleans levee calculation and response).
I think the IPCC and climate modellers should be encouraged – not ridiculed. The process needs to be more inclusive to bring people with it – from all ideologies.
Affected areas should “war games” what would be done in the event of a major incident – so at least we get our chains of command worked out, response plans defined, and resources of aid (including military) identified.
In Australia I would would to know about storm surge levels of inundation, increase building standards (for wind )in Harvey Bay to Cairns new standards , and if the Cairns hospital is on the beach with generator in the basement – I would move the hospital !! Revise the 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 flood levels. Review dam safety – spillway design/overtopping for maximum exceedance events. Lots of things like that.
It is not just greenies that are saying that storms might becoming more frequent. This is from http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=25349 which as you can see is an oil industry mag.
“But when industry executives, engineers and oceanographers gathered at an American Petroleum Institute conference in Houston in July to discuss how to improve the gulf’s infrastructure, they expected to have plenty of time to work on the problems. Then Hurricane Katrina struck, just before the end of August.
“We’re seeing more 100-year events happening more often, even every few years,” said Jafar Korloo, who has designed and managed platforms for Unocal, the oil company recently acquired by Chevron. “The bar has to be higher.” ”
Now whether this is multi decadal cycle or the result of global warming I cannot say. However the co-incidences are just stacking up to much even for the most hardened AGW skeptic.
Currently the biggest threat to oil supply is political instability; Venezuela under Chavez is teetering on the brink of civil war, they have already dropped production by 700K bbl/day.
At present this is offset by falling global prices as high prices dampens demand. SA has raised production but cannot shift enough product as refineries work at peak levels.
Blair has now intimated that GW measures ala Kyoto are unsustainable if economies are weakened. The big threat to global peace is not GW it is political and economic weakness which Greenies have refused to acknowledge.
No western political leader has denied climate change (JH said “the potential for climate change is real”) but Kyoto is flawed, ineffectual and politically unsustainable.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech912.html
http://www.techcentralstation.com/091505JP.html
Hey Phil, I found some badly needed *longer global data*…
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/13/news_pf/Weather/Storm_frenzy_is_not_a.shtml
Rog – nice try (and interesting stuff what you’ve found too)
BUT Webster is all ocean basins – lot at the my posts again !! Not just Atlantic. Emanuel is elsewheres too.
The “multi-decadal” oscillations may be just “red noise” – statistical artifacts from small sample sizes. Are they real effects ??
The Pacific decadal oscillation (IPO, PDO – whatever is out there too). And you have Indian Ocean dipoles yada yada….
And the same stats/modelling stuff bedevils and befuddles the decadal oscillation guys as the climate modellers.
Barnett (from Scripps Institution of Oceanography) has done some good work with a number of independent models to say the oceans have globally warmed. He has called GW as real on these results ….
Global temps are up. Records broken in last decade.
Few La Ninas since 1976. More El Ninos.
Parts of the Artic and antartic are melting.
Worldwide glaciers are melting.
It’s a all a very big global coincidence. Having said that I suspect some aspects of decadal or multi-decadal ocean cycles are out there. Untangling interannual (El Nino stuff), multi-decadal and climate change is going to be challenging until the global warming signal surges above these noisy neighbours and reveals itself fully.
At that point though – game over – too late – live with it (or don’t). The global atmosphere doesn’t give a stuff – it’s all just physics.
Oh – and imagine having both the Atlantic oscillation and global warming teaming up together – hang onto your hats (errr oil rigs …)
So which of the science falls into 50% wrong?
Sorry Phill. I’ve been away for a couple of days and then I got busy discussing the decline of Arctic ice extent with *real* scientists.
I could post another 6 or 8 articles which refute the claim that global warming is changing the frequency or strength of extreme weather events but what’s the point? You seem entirely locked into your Belief system regardless of the facts.
Let’s approach this from a different direction by starting from the beginning.
Can you please cite your basis for claiming that global warming is occurring? (I can assure you that I ask this very seriously because I want to understand the source of your information.)
kind regards
John McLean
Rog on the 50% – well not my words. But do yourself a favour and read the article closely.
John – if you want to produce something that refutes global warming as a “reasonable hypothesis” from something reputable e.g. Science, Nature, Journal of Climate we can discuss it.
In terms of why I believe that global warming is likely – well we have about a dozen threads over the last few months at this hallowed blog site littered with references. AND if you suggest that the scientists I quote are not *real* well jeepers – not sure what I can say to that. They seem to have some considerable publication records and positions of standing at leading institutions.
I have also made a number of lists from time to time – a body of evidence. If you have an alternative hypothesis to explain the GLOBAL body of evidence and what we’re observing then let’s hear it. Don’t fox around – LET’S HAVE IT !
And if you read what I have said on extreme events carefully I have not blamed individual events on global warming – I think recently published research paints a most interesting picture of a trend in ALL major ocean basins. “Not inconsistent with”… but perhaps decadal influences etc … requires more work.
What I am interested in though John is your dedication to prove that GW IS IMPOSSIBLE. Why are you so devoted to such a shrill anti-case.
I did read Suzuki’s article closely, which is the wrong bit?
Ioannidis is interesting, esp Corollaries 5 & 6:
*The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true* and
*The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.*
Did you read it Phil?
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10%2E1371%2Fjournal%2Epmed%2E0020124
Rog – yep. Hence the old Exxon climate research debate. You have at last agreed with us.
On Suzuki – I was saying that you did not quote the full piece – only fragments – without context those fragments may lead the Dear Gentle Readers of this hallowed blog to wrong conclusions. Coz they believe everything we say at face value and trust us implicitly.
Research needs to be reviewed. In the climate game there’s now a huge horde of hawks waiting for any weakness in published papers. Other scientists will check sources, data, methods etc.
Like democracy – it might not be the best but what else have we got? Divining tea leaves or chicken entrails.
His paper also implies the reverse too – that 50% are correct. Which 50% I hear you ask … (always the ones I quote – trust me…)
Phil I have already shown where Suzuki was wrong or inconsistent, he actually conforms with the 50% figure.
From memory you were unhappy that Suzuki was at any fault.
Phil,
Firstly, I am not attempting to prove that “that GW IS IMPOSSIBLE”. Your ignorance is sadly showing if this is what you believe.
I simply believe that (a) the arguments for and (b) the claims about, ANTHROPOGENIC global warming are (a) without proof and (b) are often unsupported by the evidence or that the evidence can be interpreted quite differently.
Look, you prove my case …!
You say “In terms of why I believe that global warming is likely – well we have about a dozen threads over the last few months at this hallowed blog site littered with references. AND if you suggest that the scientists I quote are not *real* well jeepers – not sure what I can say to that. They seem to have some considerable publication records and positions of standing at leading institutions.”
I don’t give a damn about their standing anywhere. I look at the CRU data of global average temperature anomaly and I find…
1998 – 0.58 (warmest in our measly 60 years of recordings)
2002 – 0.475 (hottest since 1998)
2003 – 0.475 strange – no increase!
2004 – 0.455 even cooler !
Now call me daft if you like but when the temperatures fall I call it COOLING !!
Are we in a cooling period? I dunno…but I do know that 1915-45 (30 years) was warming (by 0.6 degrees), 1945-75 was slight cooling, 1975 to about 1998 (33 years) warming but less than 0.6 degrees.
You also say “If you have an alternative hypothesis to explain the GLOBAL body of evidence and what we’re observing then let’s hear it. Don’t fox around – LET’S HAVE IT !”
Why the hell should I? Why on earth do you think that I need an alternative hypothesis for something which has quite demonstrably been perfectly normal in the past?
Hell, data from Greenland’s GISP 2 ice cores indicates that temperatures were higher about 1000 years ago and 1500 years ago, higher again 2000 years ago (and at this level 7000 years ago and 8000 years ago).
Please…
1 Explain why I need an alternative hypothesis when the earth has experienced even higher temperatures in the last 8000 years.
2 I want to explor ethis in more depth so please list all the possible causes of temperature increase. (I’ll give you a hint – there’s at least 4 that never get mentioned when there’s talk about temperature increases.)
cheers
John
John
Well you can get all flustered but it doesn’t solve anything. The past had different forcings from solar, orbital, oceanic, aerosol, land feedbacks and other standings. But we’re here right now !!!!!
So the fact that you’re so coy on the issue means you don’t have an explanation. Frankly it would be good to get some other hypotheses. It is very strange that in this very competitive scientific environment that NONE have been published in a reputable journal. You’d be top of the class if you came up with an answer.
Don’t by coy – blow me away and tell me ! The tactic is simply to take pot shots at every single piece of the puzzle and try to discredit every single indicator that says some warming is going on. Pretty strange that the whole lot are totally wrong.
And the fact that you don’t give a tinkers about the respective scientists standing reveals you biased non-scientific selectivity. The temperature trend is up. There are various interacting factors. The IPCC temperature graph from their modelling quite well reproduces the trend upwards. The temperature doesn’t have to go up every year – you have been lectured before about cherry picking numbers or little short trends and never replied. Comparing a warm El Nino year with a cold La Nina year is a tad naughty…
Arctic melting
Antarctic pensinsula melting
Greenland glaciers going 2x as fast in a few years
Worldwide glacial melt.
Worldwide species changes in behaviour and seasons
Permafrost melting for first time in 10000 years in Siberia
Barnett’s independent simulations agree with ocean temperature trends.
Troposphere now shown to be warming. Satellite and radiosonde arguments now history.
Good clear Antarctic data shows CO2 going exponential
More Los Ninos and fewer Las Ninas since 1976
Cat 4 and 5 storms up in all basins
Swiss works show pyranometer mesasurements agree with modelled greehouse flux numbers.
IPCC simulates temperature increase (solar plus greenhouse forcings)
Rainfall intensities up
Minima up more than maxima
Global dimming factors now understood.
Antarctic circumploar vortex going faster – ozone /GHG interaction ??
….. lotsa stuff going on John … lotsa stuff
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
This is a downward trend ??? – and with 2005 also maybe going to be another record??
And don’t forget to do your El Nino/La Nina filtering John …
I know this is a long thread, but to take up an ealier point by John, a recent TCS posing also looks earlier than 1970 into the North Atlantic hurricane record and posts nice graphs that contradict the Science paper
see
http://www.techcentralstation.com/091605F.html
Don’t get sucked in by Techstation spin. And check out the author – back after the period of recovery from the troposphere data release. Was that an Exxon commercial ?
Also see this piece of rubbish.
http://www.reason.com/hod/pm081705.shtml
Notice the lack on any actual critique of the paper.
You have to look for the spin – apparent comment but not really. The title of the article deliberately selected. Michaels’ conclusion does not match the title. He hasn’t added anything in caveats that Webster et al have not already given – doesn’t prove GW nor disprove it. Decadal effects. Not inconsistent etc….
He then totally misrepresents Emanuel’s work which looks at PDI and especially the trend in the last decade and that SSTs alone do not account for the increase in intensities.
He then quickly drags us back to one basin – the Atlantic and conveniently doesn’t mention Emanuel’s work on the longer time period….
“o – a cherry picking we will go … a cherry picking we will go …” Anyway good theatre…
AND for the record GW modelling does not indicate any increase in hurricane numbers just a gradual change to greater intensity. Storm numbers are not clear.
I just added the Emanuel and Webster papers to the possible pro GW pile on my floor. Seems to be growing.
P.S. For a change of pace. Interesting blogs and summaries on climate change bets…
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/
see below for right section …
2005-09-10
Probably not betting on climate with Lubos Motl
James Annans stuff refers.
Lubos Motl is a string theorist who thinks his opinions on GW are worth something [1]. Normally they aren’t, but since he believes that warming and cooling are equally likely in the future, there is scope for a bet in which both sides think they are getting good odds…..
You dont like some scientists Phil, well jeepers – not sure what I can say to that.
“Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, CATO Institute Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
I prefer not to make decisions based on ad hominem attacks, but look at observational evidence. The data are the prime reason for making a decision and Michaels in his TCS post presents a U shaped data curve. This U shape is evidence against the Science paper conclusions, which only talk about the right hand side of the U.
What is the problem with TCS’s U shaped data finding?
I personally dont have strong opinions about CO2 induced global warming – its a plausible, largely supported hypothesis as far as I’m concerned. The point about hurricanes is what is the evidence from the Atlantic basin.
And why in condemning “SPIN” do you need to indulge it it yourself.
I also had a look at the original paper in Science and the report at Tech Central. It appears to me that there is no evidence that the increase in severe hurricanes is due to AGW. It looks like a cyclical swing similar to that which occurred in the 1940s. I live in the Top End of the Northern Territory and there has been an appreciable lack of cyclones over the last few years – probably also a good cyclical swing!
However with now 2 ‘once in a hundred years’ storms within the space of several weeks perhaps warming is making the underlying deacadal trend worse.
Michaels long term words and actions on climate change issues speak for themselves … do some more background reading Rog …
“d” – pls read what I said before – Michaels has picked one basin, there are still some issues before the 1950s, he has failed to comment on the increase in power index that Emanuel has found in the last decade (except by a dodgy ad hom attack), and he does not represent completely what Emanuel actually says. I’m unimpressed. Do a comparo of what both papers ACTUALLY say and the then read Michaels critique.
John F – pls read the Nature paper of Emanuel too.
If you guys think that Tech Central is on a par with Science or Nature well … lah de dah …
It’s spin on a range of issues.
It’s “comment” – probably just as this blog is comment. See also Fox news. See talk back radio.
I’m simply making an strong argument adding some reasonable caveats – not trying to convince you of something by sophistry.
And yep – the lack of cyclones in our immediate region is interesting in itself (e.g. coast crossing systems from the Coral Sea)- may have a GW interacting component elsewhere. But as I have previously said – see how fast Ingrid, Nancy, Zoe and Vance have been … all very interesting.
Ender’s comment is also interesting – another one of those “one-offs”…?! maybe just a coincidence or decadal rush of warmer SSTs – maybe not. Time will tell.
My take on the evidence presented in both papers is “that there is cause for some concern and that more work is required. If you wished to act on the current modelling advice you would take some precautionary steps. That would incur some costs. We elect politicians to examine the evidence and make a “risk management” call on our interests.
So guys if you were PM or Premier – what would you do (a) nothing as you are utterly unconvinced (b) ask for more research (c) take some engineering precautions now, or (d) cancel funding for climate scientists and give the nation tax cuts.
They probably don’t have much better advice than what we are reading ourselves.
So this makes it interesting doesn’t it. A management call with imperfect information ?? Any takers…
Since you ask, Phil, what I’d do is probably none of the options you outline. Clearly Kyoto is a big mistake for a start: last time I checked even the EU wasnt even keeping their side of the deal. Also I wouldnt rush into money wasting symbolism such as promoting wind power, which is merely a strategy to win Green votes rather than solve problems cost effectively. Id do my best to convince people that shallow propaganda doesnt cut it, and shelving windmills and spending the money on nuclear feasibility studies would get that message over really well.
I’d certainly support more research, and encourage a wide range of new technology development in the direction of carbon efficient power such as favouring of natural gas over coal, possibly nuclear power, possibly carbon sequestion. Again it may be that cost wasting actions (and I suspect Kyoto is one example) may actually reduce our options for the future by their economic deadweight effect. It turns out the US Aus China India intiative may be better than Kyoto, so the current Australian government hasnt been all that dopey in opting out of Kyoto.
Its really good to see you are skeptical about TCS. But I’m skeptical about everything, even Nature, which has made a few errors in publishing trash lately. As long as you keep an open mind and encourage free comment like yours and mine, the truth eventually surfaces.
Some free advice though, in exchange for your lively remarks. You’d actually be more rhetorically effective if you didnt go and assume all those who offer mild questioning of your lines of argument are cretins, as you do by explaining to them TCS is not Nature. I read them both and the difference is pretty clear.
I’m not going to defend Kyoto except to say it has been interesting to see that reaction of the developed world to cutting CO2 and what murky politics resulted. And it may have helped quantify the CO2 fluxes in some areas. And I would also support your comments on alternative forms of energy including nuclear.
However I suspect the world will double or triple atmospheric CO2 (quadruple ??) (China and India won’t cut back, and the USA and ourselves will gasify coal to make oil). I worry about the effects of that in terms of global warming outcomes – particularly to the extremes of the climate distribution – we should we be moving on coastal design issues now in Australia.
OK – if I were PM I would … and it would probably cost me a lot of votes too as the beneficial result would not be evident in my term.
Apologies if you think I’m suggesting you’re a cretin – I do get pretty riled about the sophistic line that TCS takes on many issues.
As a contrarian Michaels is a good. But you have to read every line 3 times. And you must check the sources yourself.
The times they are a changing. Irrespective of whether the cause is anthropocentric, what is not needed is for scientists to use climate change as a crisis of science to get more funding to do more science that they direct. The world will change and people should be empowered with knowledge to enable them to make decisions as to how they want to live into the future. The problem is that science continues to define the problem and then in league with the greens and others of their ilk proceed to tell people how they should live i.e being sucked into the whole Kyoto nonsense.
The time are indeed a changing – science has no crisis but our anthropocentric view of the world is indeed the problem. I don’t think the global atmosphere recognises the economy somehow.
Climatologists et al would gain greater credence if they kept out of economics and sociology. Anybody who recommends as a solution to a perceived problem the dismantling of the global market economy and the replacement by a *central planning committee* to assess *all human activity* is seriously deluded.
Rog – who’s suggesting that we dismantle the global economy. (But how you not know that we are secretly actually planning a Marxist state run by globally “cool” people …hee hee)…
However the market economy is not very good at not internalising its externalities. You can trash the commons to make a profit if society will let you get away with it. And there has been much criticism of climatologists for not lauding the House of Lords report which advocates economic inputs.
Trouble is that the global atmosphere doesn’t give a tinkers about all this sophisticated human activity. It a physics brute that failed Economics 101 and isn’t very good at personal relationships or politics either.
Phill,
I got sidetracked again … you can see the priority with which I treat your ramblings!
I’m not flustered at all. I just want evidence. You’re the one trying to scrape together anything vaguely related and call it evidence.
Look at your list! Dearie me is this the best you can do? I suggest that you put down your GW Bible of myths and look at the real world.
Arctic melting – ice melting seems due to warm ocean waters and possibly due to a reduction in ground-level air pressure of late.
Antarctic pensinsula melting – yep, all 2% of teh Antarctic is warming and ir looks entire due to the ocean currents bring warm water from the Pacific after an El Nino.
Greenland glaciers going 2x as fast in a few years – see above. Warm ocean waters mean warmer air temperatures.
Worldwide glacial melt – the glaciers that are growing (like Franz Josef in NZ and Mt St Helens) are recieving more precipitation. NASA says more of the world is in drought so there’s your reason straight away – less ice being added to the top of the glacier.
Worldwide species changes in behaviour and seasons – yes and that’s what species do. That’s what they did after an Ice Age too.
Permafrost melting for first time in 10000 years in Siberia – bullshit. Mamoths roamed in the far north of Siberia 7,000 and 8,000 years ago when according to Greenland ice cores temperatures were even warmer. Mammoths need food all year round and I don’t think they ate permafrost ground or frozen grass.
Barnett’s independent simulations agree with ocean temperature trends. – big deal. Warm moves to cold. Warmer tropical waters caused by El Nino will move to colder regions. What’s your explanation of why Atlantic Arctic ice is much further north than Pacific ocean ice ?
Troposphere now shown to be warming. Satellite and radiosonde arguments now history. – They show warming dear boy but far less than the physics says they should.
Good clear Antarctic data shows CO2 going exponential – crap. CO2 increase is linear both in the Antarctic and at Muana Loa (where the exceptions occur in years of drought and exceptionally high rainfall both of which are counterproductive to photosynthesis.) Try looking at the data once in a while!
More Los Ninos and fewer Las Ninas since 1976 – do you expect averages to be dished up every year or every decade?
Cat 4 and 5 storms up in all basins – go back and check your data please. You’ll find, as I’ve previously said, no clear correlation between the background temperature increase and the occurrence of extreme weather.
Swiss works show pyranometer mesasurements agree with modelled greehouse flux numbers. – Hmm, interesting but do they assume that solar emissions are constant when in fact they have changed ?
IPCC simulates temperature increase (solar plus greenhouse forcings) – climate modelling contains far too many assumptions and gross simplifications. If we had any sense it would be banned under the Trade Practices Act for its deceptiveness.
Rainfall intensities up – I’m interested but please tell me exactly where and on what data you base this claim.
Minima up more than maxima – yup, and that’s consistent with more night-time cloud
Global dimming factors now understood – ROTFLMAO. There’s a good chance that the particles causing so-called dimming are trapping some heat.
Antarctic circumploar vortex going faster – pls cite referneces and explain why you cannot therefore assume that this drags more heat from the Pacific onto the Antarctic pensinsular.
ozone /GHG interaction – been researched for about 20 years and nothing found
Stop avoiding the issue!
Look at …
1998 – 0.58 (warmest in our measly 60 years of recordings)
2002 – 0.475 (hottest since 1998)
2003 – 0.475 strange – no increase!
2004 – 0.455 even cooler !
DO YOU CALL THIS WARMING OR COOLING ?
John
I CALL IT CHERRYPICKING !!
John you really are such a cherrypicker aren’t you … I’m so amazed that you can’t see it … see what else happened in 1998 !!
Tell me that my CRU graph isn’t up. Ask the next 20 random people you see to say it’s downwards !!
You haven’t a clue on half the topics you’ve listed – just had a big swing with what you know now …you haven’t had the decency to even critically read the previous references lsied elsewhere in previous threads…
I note your complete lack of any references too which is typical …
Let’s see … we’ll pick one … ozone/GHG interaction – what’s a quick sample of the 20 year literature you cite then … give us 3 papers over the period…
Permafrost – did you read the paper ? Point out the errors pls ?
The South Pole CO2 has only a small annual cycle which makes the trends clearer. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-spl.htm. From the graph one can see that the growth rate 1995-2005 is larger than 1985-1995.
El Ninos since 1976 is a bit longer than a decade ….
Circumpolar vortex and and peninsula – not even close to the issue.
Global dimming – no – temps are up worldwide – see my many previous references – its about radiation decline reaching the surface – read the literature before commenting again pls….
The Swiss pyranometer work – well you tell me what the time period was – as you obviously have critiqued the paper ?
Phil,
I like your response a few posts back to my remarks. It’s how we treat our contrarians that tells us whether we are living in a truely civil society, for the contrarians (Michael is one) are very valuable to us, because they point to the places where ‘conventional wisdom’ may be getting it wrong.
My favorite book at the moment is Christopher Hitchens’ letters to a young contrarian, which I have on my desk as I type this. Whatever you think about Hitchens’ opinions, his English style is great, and youve gotta admire someone who is willing to call Mother Theresa a fraud in print.
And as you know, AGW is the Green version of Mother Theresa.
John – the problem with climate science is that it is uncertain and there are inconsistancies. There are glaciers that are increasing and the Antartic ice is growing.
You neglect to mention that only 2 of of 40 or 50 glaciers are growing – the rest are shrinking. Also that Arctic ice is shrinking and just saying “Oh well it happened before” is a cop out. Yes it happened before but THIS time it is us. The permafrost melting is very significant because as it melts and as it warms it releases billions of tons of CO2 that increases the warming.
The Antartic is growing in some parts because of the Ozone Hole that is changing the circumpolar circulation leading to more precipitation. What you do not say is that this was predicted in the climate models and was expected.
The global dimming was confirmed by some very simple science. They left some pans of water out in the sun and let it evaporate and timed it. They then compared this to similar experiments from the past. Guess what, they found the solar intensity had dropped. No complex appartus here just some pans, water, a ruler and a watch.
You and others keep repeating the skeptics cherry picked facts without putting them in the context of the overall picture. As I have asked Loius in the past how about doing some science yourself instead of rubbishing others work with ill-informed critiques. How about you and the other skeptics stop talking and start doing real science with real instruments. If you produce contrary results then I will listen. While you just critisise others I and others will not.
One more additional thread from Jen and this thread will fall off the list and disappear into Blog obscurity.
There is much we could debate. Thanks to Ender for saying some of the things that I felt like saying.
The issue is that we have a world-wide series of events occurring. We do a GW theory. But it’s very disappointing that we don’t have a competing explanation – except for “well it’s happened before” – yes but with different set of forcings and orbital alignments – so what ??
We’re here now – do any of those issues add up for our current situation….
Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the
increasing greenhouse effect
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,1 Christoph Marty,1 Atsumu Ohmura,2 and Martin Wild2
The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
(IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric
greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a
result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in
radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations could not be experimentally detected at
Earth’s surface so far. Here we show that atmospheric
longwave downward radiation significantly increased
(+5.2(2.2) Wm2) partly due to increased cloud amount
(+1.0(2.8) Wm2) over eight years of measurements at eight
radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model
calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase
(+4.2(1.9) Wm2) to be in due proportion with temperature
(+0.82(0.41) C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m3)
increases, but three times larger than expected from
anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after
subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity
rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward
radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm2) remains statistically
significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an
enhanced greenhouse effect. INDEX TERMS: 0325
Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Evolution of the
atmosphere; 1610 Global Change: Atmosphere (0315, 0325);
1620 Global Change: Climate dynamics (3309); 1640 Global
Change: Remote sensing; 3359 Meteorology and Atmospheric
Dynamics: Radiative processes. Citation: Philipona, R., B. Du¨rr,
C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild (2004), Radiative forcing –
measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing
greenhouse effect, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/
2003GL018765.
Antarctic cooling, global warming?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18#more-18
Filed under: Climate Science Greenhouse gases Climate modelling Arctic and Antarctic— gavin @ 9:17 pm
by Eric Steig and Gavin Schmidt
Long term temperature data from the Southern Hemisphere are hard to find, and by the time you get to the Antarctic continent, the data are extremely sparse. Nonetheless, some patterns do emerge from the limited data available. The Antarctic Peninsula, site of the now-defunct Larsen-B ice shelf, has warmed substantially. On the other hand, the few stations on the continent and in the interior appear to have cooled slightly (Doran et al, 2002; GISTEMP). At first glance this seems to contradict the idea of “global” warming, but one needs to be careful before jumping to this conclusion.
A rise in the global mean temperature does not imply universal warming. Dynamical effects (changes in the winds and ocean circulation) can have just as large an impact, locally as the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. The temperature change in any particular region will in fact be a combination of radiation-related changes (through greenhouse gases, aerosols, ozone and the like) and dynamical effects. Since the winds tend to only move heat from one place to another, their impact will tend to cancel out in the global mean.
It is important to recognize that the widely-cited “Antarctic cooling” appears, from the limited data available, to be restricted only to the last two decades, and that averaged over the last 40 years, there has been a slight warming (e.g. Bertler et al. 2004. At present, it is not possible to say what the long term change over the entire last century or more has been. The lesson here is that changes observed over very short time intervals do not provide a reliable picture of how the climate is changing.
Furthermore, there are actually good reasons to expect the overall rate of warming in the Southern Hemisphere to be small. It has been recognized for some time that model simulations result in much greater warming in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere than in the South, due to ocean heat uptake by the Southern Ocean. Additionally, there is some observational evidence that atmospheric dynamical changes may explain the recent cooling over parts of Antarctica. .
Thompson and Solomon (2002) showed that the Southern Annular Mode (a pattern of variability that affects the westerly winds around Antarctica) had been in a more positive phase (stronger winds) in recent years, and that this acts as a barrier, preventing warmer air from reaching the continent. There are also some indications from models that this may have been caused by a combination of stratospheric ozone depletion and stratospheric cooling due to CO2 (Gillett and Thompson, 2002 ; Shindell and Schmidt, 2004). It is important to note, though, that there is evidence from tree-ring based climate reconstructions that the phase of the Southern Annular Mode has changed similarly in the past (Jones and Widman, 2004). We cannot, therefore, ascribe observed recent temperature changes to any one particular cause.
So what does this all of this imply? First, short term observations should be interpreted with caution: we need more data from the Antarctic, over longer time periods, to say with certainly what the long term trend is. Second, regional change is not the same as global mean change. Third, there are very reasonable explanations for the recent observed cooling, that have been recognized for some time from model simulations. However, the models also suggest that, as we go forward in time, the relative importance of increasing radiative effects, compared with atmosphere and ocean dynamic effects, is likely to increase. In short, we fully expect Antarctica to warm up in the future.
Phill,
Please answer the question…
1998 – 0.58 (warmest in our measly 60 years of recordings)
2002 – 0.475 (hottest since 1998)
2003 – 0.475 strange – no increase!
2004 – 0.455 even cooler !
DO YOU CALL THIS WARMING OR COOLING ?
John
Ender gets all excited, stamps his foot and demands * How about you and the other skeptics stop talking and start doing real science with real instruments*
Ender has the inside running on *real instruments*
Trivia aside this global warming shebang is predicated on a theory that the supporters say does not need scientific proof to be a fact.
So whats *real science* Ender?
rog – Real Science is this:
“Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origin of species that has been repeatedly tested and verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong. A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess — scientific theories are unifying concepts that explain the physical universe.
This quote is from http://www.aas.org/governance/council/resolutions.html#teach
and as you can see pertains to Evolution however if you take out the evolution part and substitute Global Warming then these people say it much better than I can.
Functioning scientists are the ones who do this:
“verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong.”
Your ‘scientists’ simply pick apart line by line the working scientists work to find any tiny mistake which is then trumpted as ‘proof’ that AGW is wrong.
How about they get on with the observing part in the real atmosphere with instruments.
I’m still waiting Phill …
1998 – 0.58 (warmest in our measly 60 years of recordings)
2002 – 0.475 (hottest since 1998)
2003 – 0.475 strange – no increase!
2004 – 0.455 even cooler !
DO YOU CALL THIS WARMING OR COOLING ?
John
Ender,
You say …
—-
“Functioning scientists are the ones who do this:
“verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong.”
Your ‘scientists’ simply pick apart line by line the working scientists work to find any tiny mistake which is then trumpted as ‘proof’ that AGW is wrong.
How about they get on with the observing part in the real atmosphere with instruments.
—-
Noble aims but unfortunately too often characterised in the pro-warming lobby by the assumption that (a) an observation has one cause only and (b) the existence of a correlation, no matter how weak, means that one element is driving the other.
Be assured that I am not exaggerating a ‘tiny mistake’ when I look at the CRUs compilation of observations of the atmosphere recorded with instruments.
As far as I can see right now the case for AGW is non-existent because the period of warming is NOT continuing.
What you must find even more galling is the lack of warming despite the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (according to the observations of the atmosphere recorded with instruments).
Let’s review your statements in the light of this reason lack of warming..
“verified through observation” – no AGW verified here mate, not when temperatures aren’t rising
“formulation of testable statements to explain those observations” – Sorry you fail again. AGW believers explain warming as a consequence of an increase of carbon dioxide. We’ve got the CO2 increase but not the warming so the AGW statements fail the test. (And so do a whole bunch of climate models!)
“and controlled experiments…” – tough one. Shall we turn the sun up a notch to see what the extra radiation does? YOU turn it up and I’ll watch what happens…
“… or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong.” – Right now the AGW ideas are looking very WRONG!
Real Science – as you define it – shows that your claims are bunkum !
Have a nice day,
John
Phil tried to post this comment yesterday AM – but was again excluded with message ‘inappropriate comment’. It seems there is a problem with posts that include too many or at least 4 fullstops … at least that is one theory. So try and limit the full stops… to three.
Best Jen.
********************
I don’t think you would survive statistics 101 I’m afraid. Short trends and
outliers are introductory materials.
OK Last year was cooler than 2003, which was cooler than 2002. And 1998 was
warmer than all three.
But barring some small short-term variation, global temperatures are rising
inexorably. 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were the hottest years on record. Nine
of the 10 hottest years have been in the past decade. 19 out of the 20 warmest
years have been since 1980. And the same sources are mooting that 2005 may be
hotter than all of them ?!
If it is you’ll have to back peddle won’t you – but you wouldn’t as you’d
say “but but but – it’s only one number..” 1998 is a considerable El Nino – of
course it will be a spike. You have to filter out El Nino/La Nina effects in
these data..
Have a look at
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/
info/warming/
Here is the spatial view…
http://lwf.ncdc
.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/trends.html
“Warmest in our 60 years of recording” you say – you thought we
didn’t notice did you… are you saying we have no measurements before 1944 –
are you sure…
John you could have taken a bet between 1940 and 1950 that the world was
cooling and for a short time you’d be right. And then you’d be massively wrong
on the long run as the greenhouse forcing (or add your explanation here) took
over.
And why leave out 1999, 2000, 2001 – you would have been overjoyed at the
time – then it warmed up again. Short term trends are not that helpful…and
statistically insignificant. No body ever said every year will be a record –
where has the IPCC said that ?
And every one-off record that gets broken can’t be attributed to climate
change either (and the corollary also holds true – you can’t rule it out
either). You simply don’t have enough information with a single datum or few
data to say anything.
The above graph has been well reproduced by IPCC models which factor in
volcanic, solar and green house forcings. There are interacting effects – but
the overall trend is
up up up… and the only hypothesis we have is CO2 borne out by some good
physics – direct measurement – see above in thread – solar and volcanoes don’t
help
explain anything. And if you remove global dimming damper from increased cloud
reflectivity and soot – well maybe the trend will be even bigger than we have
now …
You’d better hope that 2005-07 comes in cold … and that temps overall start
heading back to 1940s levels real quick.
Phil.
Phill,
Isn’t the soap-box getting a bit uncomfortable now?
You say “1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were the hottest years on record” – but be HONEST here and and say IN ORDER OF DECREASING TEMPERATURES.
Sure 8 years is not a long period but the declining temperatures in this period may well be indicative that the period of warming has ceased and temperatures are now FLAT.
Phil, I do what Ender said one should do; I look at the data not the varierty of spin/opinions. I use
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ as the prime source of global and hemispheric data.
When I said warmest in about 60 years of warming I did so with a very good reason. If you bothered to look at the CRU data you’ll find that they indicate the percentage of the world covered by accurate observations. In 1945 that coverage was 50% – in other words we lacked reliable data for 50% of the world. Any average global temperatures would be very speculative.
Do you know about the “Little Ice Age” of about 1857? Global coverage was about 17 or 18% and I’ll bet that was Europe, the USA, Canada and almost nowhere else. I wonder if the Little Ice Age was anything more than a phenomenon of the Northern Hemisphere and maybe only the US, Atlantic and Europe?
Thanks for mentioning 1999, 2000 and 2001. These show how easy it is for temperatures to fall despite the levels of CO2 (if you believe that sort of thing).
The big difference between Australian and Global temperatures is that heat energy can easily disappear from Australia but in a global picture it can keep circulating. Hence the well-documented disperson of warm equatorial waters to the polar regions takes several years and causes warming along the way. Get another El Nino while this is happening and there’s a good chance that we’ll now have two regions of warmth.
Also, what happens when warmer waters reach the polar regions? The heat goes wherever the winds and ocean current take it. Sometimes this means icebergs break off and sometimes it means warmer winds blowing across another region and moving the heat around.
(I think I’ve said it before but maybe not – it’s like pouring milk into hot black coffee and analysing each swirl of warm and cooler currents.)
Actually we do know what caused 1998 to be the warmest year regards global averages. The Southern Hemisphere warmed more than usual and becaus ethis coincided with NH warming, the average was higher than usual. The reason for the warming? An analysis of the monthly anomalies makes it pretty damn certian that it was caused by a very strong El Nino. Of course all this might be a coincidence but the chances are not high…
I assume the graph that you claim the IPCC models reproduce is the trends graphs. I wonder how many times those models has to be tweaked – as in the parameterizations be adjusted – in order to approximate the trend graphs. I suspect that the best you could say is that the graphs were able to match a particular situation at a particular point in time. According to detailed analysis (by others) and my own efforts, I can tell you that the models are still a long, long way from accurate predictions.
Don’t believe me? Well, a satellite was just launched – or is about to be – to take a good look at clouds because it is well known that the algorithms for handling cloud in climate models are very poor.
Finally, why should I hope 2005-07 comes in cold of that temps start to go back to 1940 levels? You’re the one making big claims about continued warming being caused by increasing carbon dioxide.
I’m saying that
(a) the OBSERVATIONAL DATA does not support your glib assertions
(b) the models that you hold in high regard are so flawed as to be useless
(c) that warming is irregular while carbon dioxide increases pretty uniformly and so if CO2 is having any effect at all it is very small (which casts further doubt upon the models)
You claims simply do NOT stack up! If you were honest, you would acknowledge that fact and investigate why.
cheers
John
John
I note you have glossed over all the other points and gone back to the cherry picking on the CRU data.
I have to tell you that you statistical argument on trends would not pass Introduction to Statistics 101. You cannot say anything in these short term runs. As I said it may be that 2005 is warmer – if it is – “on your argument” you’ll be in trouble. Myself I would look at a longer time period.
You make a big argument about things “not being that simple” and then you “assume” that CO2 will increase linearly every year and that every year MUST be a record. Not that’s illogical. If you think at the current level of forcing and with the various other issues like El Nino occurring and you think you will see that – well I’m speechless.
And I agree with you about 1998 and El Nino – but there have been past El Ninos too – why weren’t they the warmest ? 1982/83 was a whooper. Do some research on the effects of global temepratures by El Ninos – it may help explain things.
If you’re right – it will be Nobel prize winning stuff – but before you rush off to Science or Nature to claim the ground – then take your stats argument to any maths teacher or uni stats dept and see if they think it would be publishable. I’m telling you they will politely show you the door.
On stats – climate guys obsess over it – look up the mathematics of validation and cross validation.
The reason you should that the next few years come in cold is that if the temps go up your argument here is irrelevant, spurious, unscientific and wrong. You are the one saying it’s a cooling trend. If you are not I don’t understand what you’re saying.
And if you won’t go back before 1940 (strangely lops off a nasty tail eh) – well we must not talk about any Little Ice Age data – because anecdotal evidence is heresay and there were no accurate temperature recordings – your logic not mine ! You can’t have it both ways John. It’s interesting that those researchers who have patiently put the pre-1940 record together have wasted their time. And if they are wrong – well don’t trust the CRU as you have done as they are citing pre-1940 figures. Gee if that’s the level of their science (on your logic not mine) don’t trust them.
I’m afraid the observational data does support the hypothesis – and a wide range, based on physics, trends, data and models – not just a few cherry picked numbers. The Swiss guys have calculated the flux.
Models – so flawed to be useless – list out your long reasons why. Many many journal articles on validation must be in error.
On Australia losing energy – well it all depends – big droughts may provide a reinforcing feedback mechanism – the opposite of what you’re saying.
And on heat flowing to the poles – I thought you were saying Antartica was getting cooler. ?? Haven’t thought about effects on circumpolar vortex have you?
Don’t worry about satellites to be launched/just launched – the ones already up there say that the troposphere has warmed. Were’nt you saying the opposite only a few months ago?
On the IPCC tweaking their models. Well no – it’s a bit more complicated than a simple regression. They don’t fit data like that. If you model the separate forcings wyou don’t explain the variation. If you add them you do. And they do explore more than a point in time (from your words)- a whole line of points in fact.
And you are right on models – they have a long way to go. And it seems that when corrected, the warming may be even greater – not less than predicted
You are a cherry picker I’m afraid. You pluck little bits of flotsam and jetsam from very small runs of data and then try make a whole construct around it. Not even serious skeptics do that.
You have not provided one single mechanism for what you are seeing. You just keep saying – “well duh – it has happened before so ”