It seems everyone is watching the new BBC ITV channel 4 documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’.
It is being describes as out and out propaganda by many establishment climate scientists. I was sent a link to this blog post which includes a short critique by a well known contributor to the IPCC, William Connolley:
“There has been a vast amount of back and forth about the recent propaganda film ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. Two things have distressed me: that Channel 4 clearly have no interest in whether they broadcast truth or not; and the number of people prepared to fall for this tripe.
It’s possible to go through and analyse why just about everything they said was wrong or misleading, and I’ll try that in a moment. But if you find that going right over your head, then it may be more convincing to point out that:
1. They have faked some of their graphs,
2. One of the most respected scientists interviewed, Carl Wunsch, has since denounced the programme as “an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community.” [end of quote]
Connelley then goes on to justify the approach Al Gore took in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’:
“Comparisons to Al Gores ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ may be instructive. A defence of TGGWS that I’ve seen is “it may be propaganda, but so was AIT”. While I have some quibbles with AIT, the science is fundamentally correct (though I wasn’t impressed with the images of Manhattan flooding, or the bits about spread of disease). Gore, as far as I can tell, hasn’t faked any of his graphs or mislead any of his interviewees. He ignored the tempertaure /CO2 lag stuff, which is probably fair enough as it does little except confuse people. [end of quote]
So it seems Al Gore got a fair bit wrong: the likely extent of flooding, the spread of malaria not to mention misrepresenting the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide in the ice-core data.
Connelley’s approach to the two movie’s seems a bit partisan to me.
Read the complete blog post here including accusations of faking graphs: http://elleeseymour.com/2007/03/14/who-swindled-who/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“He ignored the tempertaure /CO2 lag stuff, which is probably fair enough as it does little except confuse people. ”
I think this blog contains conclusive evidence of that point.
Also “some quibbles” is not the same as “Al Gore got a fair bit wrong”.
Rather than a swindle, we have a well heeled mangle employed now to grind up valid inputs on climate change.
References to historical lags have no bearing on discussion re current man made drivers or impacts
It has been an interesting exercise, they are either both propaganda or not.
Gore got more than a ‘fair bit wrong’ – polar bears, gulf stream slowing down or stopping (debunked by Carl Wunsch is a letter to Nature in 2004), 2003 summmer heat wave deaths in Eurpoe (don’t mention winters)etc. TGGWS has stood up well to predictable attacks from the usual suspects. The graph was corrected in the seconds showing. TGGWS maker Martin Durkin gave his response in The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=5HJL20VZ3GZD1QFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/03/18/ngreen218.xml
‘The global-warmers were bound to attack, but why are they so feeble?’
Last Updated: 11:20pm GMT 17/03/2007
‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, broadcast by Channel 4, put the case for scepticism about man-made climate change. The programme sparked a heated debate and charges of scientific inaccuracy. Here, its director, Martin Durkin, responds to the critics.
On March 8, Channel 4 broadcast my programme. Since then, supporters of the theory of man-made global warming have published frothing criticism. I am attacked for using an “old” graph depicting temperature over the past 1,000 years. They say I should have used a “new” graph – one used by Al Gore, known as the “hockey stick”, because it looks like one.
But the hockey stick has been utterly discredited. The computer programme used to generate it was found to produce hockey-stick shapes even when fed random data (I refer readers to the work of McIntyre & McKitrick and to the Wegman Report, all available on the internet). Other than the discredited hockey stick, the graph used by us (and published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is the standard, accepted record of temperature in this period.
A critic claims that one of the graphs cited by us, illustrating the extraordinarily close correlation between solar variation and temperature change, has since been “corrected”. It most certainly has not. The graph was produced by Prof Eigil Friis-Christensen, the head of the Danish National Space Centre, who says it still stands. But if the global-warmers don’t like that graph, there are plenty of others that say the same thing.
No one any longer seriously disputes the link between solar activity and temperature in earth’s climate history. I urge readers to look up on the net: Veizer, Geoscience Canada, 2005; and Soon, Geophysical Research Letters, 2005.
In the film, we used three graphs depicting temperature change in the 20th century. On one there was an error in the dates on the bottom. This was corrected for the second transmission of the programme, on More4, last Monday. It made no difference. Global-warmers can pick whichever graph they like. The problem for them remains the same. The temperature rise at the beginning of the century (prior to 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively insignificant) was as great, most graphs show greater, than the temperature rise at the end of the century.
So what else do they hit me with? Prof Carl Wunsch, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who appeared in the film, later claimed he was duped into taking part. He was not.
The remarkable thing is not that I was attacked. But that the attacks have been so feeble. The ice-core data was the jewel in the global-warming crown, cited again and again as evidence that carbon dioxide ‘drives’ the earth’s climate. In fact, as its advocates have been forced to admit, the ice-core data says the opposite. Temperature change always precedes changes in CO2 by several hundred years. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way round. The global-warmers do not deny this. They cannot.
During the post-war economic boom, while industrial emissions of CO2 went up, the temperature went down (hence the great global-cooling scare in the 1970s). Why? They say maybe the cooling was caused by SO2 (sulphur dioxide) produced by industry. But they say it mumbling under their breath, because they know it makes no sense. Thanks to China and the rest, SO2 levels are far, far higher now than they were back then. Why isn’t it perishing cold?
Too many journalists and scientists have built their careers on the global-warming alarm. Certain newspapers have staked their reputation on it. The death of this theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong, wrong, wrong.
“‘The global-warmers were bound to attack, but why are they so feeble?'”?
Because it’s not too hard to push over a rotten fence?
Come on Paul – that’s just a rant – you know better that – SO2 now – umm coz there’s more CO2? And from global dimming work we know that the warming would be greater without aerosols.
As for the CO2 lags I’ve written far too much of late – but gee is it that difficult a concept to hold two variables in one’s mind at once. or maybe 3. What else would expect and you know it.
Two positive drivers and one negative. It’s not one or the other and I’m sick to the teeth with you guys trying to say it’s either this of that exclusively. It’s deliberate obfuscation.
The cosmic ray stuff is going the same way as the UHI satellite data.
Wunsch is on the record and his testimony is damning.
TGGWS are a bunch of crooks. Gore’s movie left a lot to be desired but actual fiddling with the data – I spit on their effort. I could take every part of TGGWS apart but why bother. Doesn’t get much worse.
And so at one movie of crap each – leaves us all no more further advanced eh?
But TGGWS is utterly indefensible on any level.
Newspapers have staked their reputation on controversy and sensationalism – that’s the real issue with the press. Hot and cold.
“So what else do they hit me with? Prof Carl Wunsch, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who appeared in the film, later claimed he was duped into taking part. He was not.”
So it’s Durkin’s against that of Wunsch. Who to believe? Well, if we go on past form, that Durking has done exactly the same deception in a previous documentary.
I’m going with Wunsch.
My understanding is that Wunsch’s main objection is seeing his rebuttals of the ‘hard science’ of GW being included in a sceptical documentary. Was Wunsch actually misrepresented?
Wunsch did not rebut any ‘hard science’. He was discussing the problems with climate models, and he still believes it is real, and a genuine issue for the human race to face up to.
Lets use his own words
“I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars’ because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.
The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,…). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
The surface data is far more prone to error than the UAH satellite data.
A reminder:
Christy and Spencer response in summary:
We agree with C. Mears and F. J. Wentz (“The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature,” 2 Sept., p. 1548; published online 11 Aug.) that our University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) method of calculating a diurnal correction to our lower tropospheric (LT) temperature data (v5.1) introduced a spurious component. We are grateful that they spotted the error and have made the necessary adjustments. The new UAH LT trend (v5.2, December 1978 to July 2005) is +0.123 K/decade, or +0.035 K/decade warmer than v5.1. This adjustment is within our previously published error margin of ± 0.05 K/decade (1).
We agree with S. C. Sherwood et al. (“Radiosonde daytime biases and late–20th century warming,” 2 Sept., p. 1556; published online 11 Aug.) that there are significant, progressively colder biases in stratospheric radiosonde data, as we and others have noted (1, 2). We further agree that many daytime radiosondes are plagued by spurious cooling in the troposphere as well (3). However, there are also instances in which spurious warming occurs in both day and night soundings. Such a circumstance is not properly accommodated by the day-minus-night (DMN) procedure, a possibility mentioned by Sherwood et al., but not specifically addressed. For example, when the Australian/New Zealand network, prominent in the Southern Hemisphere in Sherwood et al’s Report., switched instrumentation from Mark III to Vaisala RS-80, both day and night warmed approximately 0.4 K [(3, updated], with tropospheric night readings warming more than day readings. On the basis of this relative difference, the DMN method assumes that a correction for spurious cooling should be applied, when in fact the real error is large and of the opposite sign.
DMN values are useful indicators for pointing out radiosonde changes, but they are often not useful in assessing magnitudes and in this case overestimate the trend.
Further, the DMN-adjusted tropospheric trend for 1958–97 of +0.253 K/decade for the 75% of the globe south of 30°N is more than 2.5 times that of the surface (+0.092 K/decade) and thus very likely to be spuriously warm. [Note that B. D. Santer et al. (“Amplification of surface temperature trends and variability in the tropical atmosphere,” Reports, 2 Sept., p. 1551; published online 11 Aug.) indicate a ratio less than 1.4.] Direct, site-by-site comparisons between radiosondes and UAH LT data at 26 U.S.-controlled stations (nighttime only) from tropics to polar latitudes yield a difference in trends of less than 0.03 K/decade, showing consistency with the more modest UAH LT trends (1) [(3), updated through 2004].
John R. Christy* and Roy W. Spencer
Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Cramer Hall, 320 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA.
There was a fall in solar activity from the 1940’s to 1970’s.
Aside form, Christensen, Armagh Observatory have also plotted solar cycle length against temperature (Northern Hemisphere):
http://www.arm.ac.uk/press/200years-on-the-Net.html
The reciprocal of the length of the solar cycle is a general indicator of eruptivity / magnetic activity. Instead of plotting the reciprocal, charts often show the length decreasing upwards rather than increasing.
I’m still looking for the mechanism whereby CO2 drives solar activity.
Pity Al Gore didn’t read this letter to Nature from Carl Wunsch in 2004 before making AIT:
“Sir – Your News story “Gulf Stream probed for early warnings of system failure” (Nature 427, 769 (2004)) discusses what the climate in the south of England would be like “without the Gulf Stream.” Sadly, this phrase has been seen far too often, usually in newspapers concerned with the unlikely possibility of a new iceage in Britain triggered by the loss of the Gulf Stream.
European readers should be reassured that the Gulf Stream’s existence is a consequence of the large-scale wind system over the North Atlantic Ocean, and of the nature of fluid motion on a rotating planet. The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both.
Real questions exist about conceivable changes in the ocean circulation and its climate consequences. However, such discussions are not helped by hyperbole and alarmism. The occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream anytime soon – within tens of millions of years – has a probability of little more than zero.
Carl Wunsch
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology” (Nature 428, 601, April 8, 2004)
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is much easier than removing it, but since climate sensitivity to CO2 is low, it is not ‘dangerous.’
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
Talking about the swindle.
If these people are spot on (sun spots) then the earth should warm for a few more years yet. Then cool.
Why am I suspicious that AL Gore and friends are hyping the CO2 BS so they can claim credit for the cooling phase.
I watched the BBC show, thought it had more science than a certain Scary Movie 4.
There is also a good short compilation on Friends of Science. http://www.friendsofscience.org/
Lets not forget that Wunsch said that it is near impossible to separate human induced change from natural.
Wunsch said the chance of the Gulf Stream stopping due to climate change was about zero, he didn’t say climate change would cause no problems, refer, previous quote from me.
Nevket
http://www.friendsofscience.org/ uses the same dodgy graph TGGWS did.
The sunspot cycle is completely wrong.
http://www.badscience.net/?p=386
Not just a dodgy graph, but outright fraud.
..and refer to quote from Munsch “It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever.”
Rog
please quote Wunsch, not paraphrase him, guilding the lilly in the process
“Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.”
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1
The original graph from TGGWS, and the revised one. They fixed the time scale at least, but the data still ends before their claim falls to pieces.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/spot_the_difference.php
Note, Luke, SJT, Anthony, Gavin, the quote from Christy & Spencer, above,
“Further, the DMN-adjusted tropospheric trend for 1958–97 of +0.253 K/decade for the 75% of the globe south of 30°N is more than 2.5 times that of the surface (+0.092 K/decade) and thus very likely to be spuriously warm.”
Durkin was dead right to say the ice core data was the jewel in the climate cadres crown that now looks like cheap costume trinkets.
And Luke is still flogging big burp theory, but with methane this time. Sad, so sad.
And remember big Al’s complete load of bollocks on pacific island refugees from rising sea levels?
So lets list the proven bollocks, shall we?
Collapse of gulf stream? see Wunsch.
Big burp methane from the tundra? only for a few weeks each year and only from undrained sites.
Melting permafrost altering albedo? What, from 200 metres below the surface?
Rapid melting of Greenland ice sheet? followed by equally rapid correction and surface deposition.
Sea level rise already displacing pacific islanders? guuuffaaaaaaw.
Ice Cores showing CO2 driving temperature rises? Only if you are completely incapable of interpreting a graph.
No sign of urban heat island effect in reliable data from revolutionary China and USSR? give us a break.
And Oh yes, malarial mosquitoes moving north with global warming? Funny, haven’t heard ANY climate cretins defending that one.
So what are they left with? Just the usual abuse and sneering of gutless pack runners.
“Just the usual abuse and sneering of gutless pack runners.”
Come on Ian, you started it.
Ian’s losing it – just thrown out the metal chaff and fired all his flares. What a loser.
So you’re to trust a bunch of gimps how can’t even analyse their own satellite data for calibration drift. Jeez Ian did you come down in the last shower.
Again for the 100th time I have not suggested a big burp theory. Please retract or I’ll have to have strong words.
What Ian has failed to note is a global warming in the last 30 years from a wide body of evidence that is well explained by well known CO2 radiative physics. NO OTHER explanations unless you’re a astrologist or believe in fairies or cosmic rays or other twaddle. Throwing to boutique peripheral issues is a sure sign of his desperation.
What are you going to do Ian as the evidence keeps piling up year after year. At what point do we get the apology for being a twit.
Jen, TGGWS was ITV channel 4, not BBC (Blair’s Broadcasting Cronies).
Another contributor to TGGWS was Syun-Ichi Akasofu:
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=sakasofu
Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”? A possible cause of global warming
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf
Also, Paul Reiter who had to threaten legal action to get his name removed from the IPCC report:
From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age
Paul Reiter
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, San Juan, Puerto Rico
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no1/reiter.htm
Let the ad hom begin.
read your own selected snippets SJT then get your own house in order
Paul: “The basis for drawing a linear increase in Fig 1 is weak” – Is the Earth still recovering from the little ice age?
At a glance Paul I could run with the hockey stick curve interpretation simply because I would expect something like that ie a longer natural curve from experience after decades of climate type measurements. I know too from experience data below the 1940’s and certainly below 1880’s is backwards guessing in terms of reliability to the extreme.
Quote me on how good your old thermometer was, way back then.
In the CO2 Acquittal thread I claimed some direct knowledge of our climate science because I see too often, foolish assessments being made by academic types with their smattering of education in physics, maths etc but with no practical experience to boot.
In the late 80’s my desk was opposite a technical expert who had done a number of mid winter tours in Antarctica for example. He probably had less climate experience than me but had done a lot more measurements under extreme conditions. He only got that chance because most of the scientists had gone home after their summer vacation up on the ice.
Previously one of my bosses was the commander of the expedition that put Oz permanently on the Antarctic Mainland. He remained our technical leader for years.
Science only got a good foothold down there after that period. And guess what? Conditions have improved since including the weather.
Why my interest in Antarctica? Our ice block is bigger than yours and when it drips a bit more the whole world will know about it soon enough
Paul: The stupidity of all this is you didn’t even know about our baseline data or its status in the current scheme of things; however my amusement here comes mostly from another regular poster. He does sums till the cows come home and then some; re ice and all manner of other things in his general attempts to disassociate human activity with a worsening local environment.
This form of denial shows a complete lack of faith in others tasked to interpret both simultaneous trends in baseline data, particularly the unprecedented rapidly rising CO2 and temperature graphs associated with our industrial history.
Paul: In all my work I never used a slide rule. I did however learn to depend entirely on the experience of others before me. There is no need to massage good measurements one way or another. See them for what they are, steps up the slopes, what ever. Follow the climate details like a landscape or your face warts n all.
Paul – what does “reovering” from the last ice age actually mean? Gaia says “oh I’ve had such a doing of late with climate mood swings and 6 billions humans – golly it’s going to take a long while to get over it.”
So you give us an essay by Akasofu, a frustrated solar physicist, who’d like the Sun to get more of a go. With some stats that you could drive a truck through.
As for Reiter, yep the IPCC could have done a lot better with mossies, but in a process that develops something like the TAR you’re bound to get a few people that get the irrits with the process. His unhappy experience could have been matched by a large number saying the opposite. Fair enough that the historical range of mossies is much greater than currently thought. But we don’t have insect vectors in many parts of the world due to temperature limitations so the fundmentals still stick. Including certain species of anopheline mosquitos. A classic insect example that is affcted is the distrubing changes in the pine beetle as it munchs through the North American forest estate with range expanded due to warming temperatures.
We could also start going through a big list of contrarians too – like the cast of the movie under discussion and take apart all the crap they’ve said over many years – we could fill thousands of lines with it Paul.
So it seems that contrarians are allowed to say absolutely anything anytime and it’s OK to put the boot in as long as it’s “attacking”.
But having some commie movie maker blatantly doctor graphs and data sets I’d have to say is a new low point we don’t really want to see get indulged.
Lastly it’s fascinating that Ian is prepared to dismiss the temperature record by thermometers as spurious but be completely uncritical and univestigative of the paleo proxies for CO2 and temperature. Grooving on every wiggle.
Do we have a time series of volcanism, El Nino/La Nina activity to go with those data series.
MOST importantly a solar forcing time series.
Does he care that the lead and science method of the proxies has been challenged. What this the same person that was worried about the pre-industrial 280ppm and defending Jaworowski’s shonk analysis of 20th century CO2 evolution.
Worried about Mauna Loa but doesn’t give us the Cape Grim or Antartica CO2 numbers.
Someone who’ll criticise the global CO2 network but happily accept uncritically a few ice cores?
AND no comment to those historical periods where CO2 and CH4 have led and mass extinctions resulted.
How selective. Sorry Ian you’ve failed your lit review. Start your thesis again.
Paul,
Thanks for the note.
I’ve just made a correction to the blog post, changing BBC to ITV Channel 4.
I had thought the doco was commissioned by the BBC and that Channel 4 was part of the BBC. Is there any relationship?
Rog
Ian throws mud and abuse every second post. Schiller has repeatedly asked me why I want 25 million people to die. Louis is a regular source of abuse. It gets tiresome after a while, I don’t have to just sit back and take it.
Jennifer: It’s time you got yourself acquainted with some long standing Australian science and technology beginning with our teams in the Antarctic regions, Cape Grim, CSIRO and industry. Have you ever read TIA? That’s almost a complete record to start with.
Politically we have become extremely un wise as a nation in that dedicated career paths in modern science are in jeopardy everywhere. Too many people just breeze through now in short term projects. Graduates lack practical skills development and the will to continue. They frequently have no technical staff as background. In fact just about all commonwealth technical staff has disappeared in the last decade. That leaves Defence and everybody else with their pants down.
CRC’s particularly suffer. How do I know? I ask the right people, those working now in my old interests.
Also we have a damming 800 PAGE REPORT so new I haven’t read a word yet. Bet it won’t get a mention here up front.
Gavin, Your increasingly posting comment that is completely off topic. Is this a spoiling tactic? Warning, I may start deleting off-topic comments.
“During the post-war economic boom, while industrial emissions of CO2 went up, the temperature went down (hence the great global-cooling scare in the 1970s). Why? They say maybe the cooling was caused by SO2 (sulphur dioxide) produced by industry. But they say it mumbling under their breath, because they know it makes no sense. Thanks to China and the rest, SO2 levels are far, far higher now than they were back then. Why isn’t it perishing cold?”
First of all, can we have the evidence for this claim. I can personally testify to dimming in Thailand. The pollution around Bangkok has to be seen to be believed. It’s still not, apparently, comparable to the USA and the West back in their heyday.
Also, in the meantime, CO2 levels have not dropped, and the level is still rapidly rising.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody will see it. Mahatma Gandhi.
Davey
that is why there is a scientific method.
Good grief,
None of the climate alarmists posting here understand the scientific method, sad to say, but like all of statist or non-scientific pretentions, shooting messengers remains the time honoured sport it always has been for the devout and faithhul acolytes of St. Algore.
Amen.
Louis
I am not an acolyte of Al Gore, and have not seen his film. Your understanding of the scientific method has me scratching my head. What exactly do you think a theory is?
I looked up some of Louis’s work to see how he approaches the rigours of science. Anyone interested can read this and other articles.
http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=4561
“So it seems Al Gore got a fair bit wrong: the likely extent of flooding, the spread of malaria not to mention misrepresenting the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide in the ice-core data.”
Jen, perhaps you could elaborate on how you reached these conclusions from what Connelley was saying? In doing so, perhaps it would be useful if you could start with what Al’s assumptions were behind showing the flood maps and spread of malaria.
My understanding was that he was saying: if sea levels rise by x – this is the flooding which will occur. If we get warming y – this is how malaria spreads etc.
My understanding is that given projections for CO2 under business as usual and scientific understanding of climate, those scenarios are possible (note: I have not said certain, have not said the world will end or anything crazy. Just, that those scenarios are possible).
So, it seems to me Al Gore was illustrating possible effects from possible warming based on plausible assumptions. He wasn’t making certain predictions based on unproven theories (like the impending global cooling from cosmic rays which some corners of the community seem to be hanging their hat on).
What is the issue? Is it possible you have misinterpreted Al’s message, much the same way as you have misinterpreted Connelly’s message?
Sorry, can’t resist. This is a great article
http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=4537
Apparently because CO2 does not correlate with temperature in the south pole means CO2 does not cause warming. Enlighten us on your scientific method please Louis.
SJT,
With apologies to W.V.O. Quine, students of the heavens are separable into astronomers and astrologists as readily as are the minor domestic ruminants into sheep and goats, but the separation of climatologists, environmentalists, ecologists, politicians, journalists and blogospherologists into sages and cranks sometimes needs more discernment. Is there a scientific method for this? Could we estimate the probability of a Type I error? Or was Popper right in saying that science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths? Is that the current stage of the climate debate? I can guess at your answer, but others may have other views. Something useful may come out of it, as opposed to the present cherry-picking and propaganda competition.
You know that the argument is heading into deep outer space when Ghandi is quoted.
From my observation of the obfuscation on the AGW threads on this blog, I see what I always suspected was the case.
The people who believe in AGW carry on like Elizabeth Taylor in the taming of the shrew, only they seem to hunt in packs.
I just wish Richard Burton would come along and slap them up the side of the head and tell them to play nice.
So much for the much vaunted consensus ( it seems to me consensus of the believers only is allowed) and the case is proved on this blog at least, the AGW believers are attack dogs.
Us skeptics don’t have to worry too much, the scientific universe will decide the argument, not a religious brotherhood and the inquisition (but it was close). The AGW brotherhood haven’t even got teeth, they wet themselves when someone says I don’t agree and huff and puff.
The AGW Debate: Prove it and don’t fudge the data. Without the hockey stick, the argument went pear shaped. Since then it seems to be falling apart like the hindenberg. (The world might be getting hot because of the Sun lol) 4% of all CO2 will cause doom, give me a break, CO2 as a gas is the second smallest by 1/100 of all gas even though second.
The solution introduce more water vapor (the biggest contributor).
Or as a skeptic am I allowed an opinion,seems not according to AGW religion.
Have fun with a new chew toy.
Thanks Jen. If nothing else your blog demonstrates what must be happening elsewhere when someone puts their hand up and says I disagree.
Al said/hinted that malaria has increased with global warming and says/infers that the original siting of Nairobi was because it was malaria free.
This has been refuted by african malaria experts.
The whole thing is a bit like those share trading forums where people have different “scientific” methods to achieve wealth eg Fibonacci, turtle, elliot wave, cup + saucer….it only works if everyone else is using them, otherwise its one step away from astrology.
All these half baked experts googling
Jen, there is no link between ITV/Channel 4 and the BBC – they are rival TV companies.
Sunspots? Solar cycle length:
1940’s to 1970’s
http://www.arm.ac.uk/press/200years-on-the-Net.html
‘Recovery from the little ice age’ is self explanatory – the coldest part – Maunder Minimum -coincides with the coldest period which was a minimum for solar activity.
The LIA in the Alps:
Alex Blass, Martin Grosjean, Andrea Troxler, and Michael Sturm
How stable are twentieth-century calibration models? A high-resolution summer temperature reconstruction for the eastern Swiss Alps back to AD 1580 derived from proglacial varved sediments
The Holocene 2007 17: 51-63.
“We found exceptionally low temperatures between AD 1580 and 1610 (0.75°C below twentieth-century mean) and during the late Maunder Minimum from AD 1680 to 1710 (0.5°C below twentieth-century mean). In general, summer temperatures did not experience major negative departures from the twentieth-century mean during the late ‘Little Ice Age’. This compares well with the two existing independent regional reconstructions suggesting that the LIA in the Alps was mainly a phenomenon of the cold season.”
Down Under:
Pollack, H.N., Huang, S., Smerdon, J.E., 2006. Five centuries of climate change in Australia: The view from underground. Journal of Quaternary Science, 21 (7): 701-706.
ABSTRACT: Fifty-seven borehole temperature profiles from across Australia are analysed to reconstruct a ground surface temperature history for the past five centuries. The five-hundred-year reconstruction is characterised by a temperature increase of approximately 0.5 K, with most of the warming occurring in the 19th and 20th centuries. The 17th century was the coolest interval of the five-century reconstruction. Comparison of the geothermal reconstruction to the Australian annual surface air temperature time series in their period of overlap shows excellent agreement. The full geothermal reconstruction also agrees well with the low-frequency component of dendroclimatic reconstructions from Tasmania and New Zealand. The warming of Australia over the past five centuries is only about half that experienced by the continents of the Northern Hemisphere in the same time interval.
Climate forced atmospheric CO2 variability in the early Holocene: A stomatal frequency reconstruction
C.A. Jessen a, M. Rundgren a, S. Björck a and R. Muscheler b
A GeoBiosphere Science Centre, Quaternary Sciences, Lund University, Sölvegatan 12, SE223 62 Lund, Sweden
B National Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Paleoclimatology, 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305–3000 USA
“The CO2(SI) reconstruction through the early Holocene bears a striking similarity to reconstructed solar activity changes. This may suggest a rapid response of climate to minor changes in solar activity during this dynamic period, which in turn impacted the global carbon cycle. This can, to some extent, also be seen in the climatic responses associated with the Maunder Minimum in the mid-17th to early 18th centuries.”
John
I don’t know if you’ve ever read any comments by Ian, but they aren’t the friendliest I’ve come across.
The hockey stick is not the crux of the evidence, it stands without the hockey stick. Subsequent research has confirmed the hockey stick to be probably correct.
“CO2 as a gas is the second smallest by 1/100 of all gas even though second.”
You don’t seem to understand chemistry and physics much. A small amount of a substance can have a significant effect on a system. Eg, catalytic reactions. That small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is where trees and plants get the carbon from to grow. Amazing, isn’t it?
Acha Rog (Raj?) Sahib,
One billion Indians can’t be wrong. Now that’s what you call a consensus. Think of all that CO2, not to mention methane and hydrogen sulphide in the mango season. Exit left, singing “Sixteen annas one rupee, seventeen annas one buckshee, pancakes again for tea, someone shoot the bobajee…”
And you’re here arguing too John with the rest of us so don’t complain. I note your appeal to teensy weensy – that’s scientific (not!) and a usual ploy. Introduce more water vapour – sigh ! Why bother – yea sure mate. Whatever.
And it can’t be the Sun can it? “Recovery from the Little Ice Age” makes no sense as a concept at all !! Simply rhetoric.
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf
Vol 443|14 September 2006|doi:10.1038/nature05072
Variations in solar luminosity and their
effect on the Earth’s climate
P. Foukal
1
, C. Fro ¨hlich
2
, H. Spruit
3
& T. M. L. Wigley
4
Variations in the Sun’s total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on
the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have
contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed
analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this
new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming
since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun’s output of ultraviolet light, and of
magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate
meaningfully at present.
Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of
sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial,
millennial and even million-year timescales. Better reconstructions
of global temperature and solar activity will be required to
investigate further the apparent relationships between climate and
solar activity seen over the past millennium and through the
Holocene, particularly if the signature of any solar influence is
spatially restricted
75
.
Let’s face it dudes – nobody is going to chnage their mind here – EVER. We all have already made up our mind before we got here.
Either the concept of warming the planet offends you morally, financially and spiritually and you want to argue it down
or
you’re a rampant greenie and want to believe mankind is destroying the planet
or
or you’re an agrumentative bastard who likes to get up the science establishment and have Galileo fantasies
or
you’re intelligent, good looking, popular and know good science when you see it. Pity the other gimps are soooo stupid.
Anyway – nobody changes their minds here. EVER.
Rog
I have already stated, I am an interested punter, I am not a scientist. It’s a common dilemma these days, science is an integral part of so much of our modern world, yet none of us can ever hope to understand it all.
Global Warming is an issue of vital importance to us, if the scientists are correct, yet we are incapable of analysing all their arguments and models.
“In place of naïve falsification, Popper envisioned science as evolving by the successive rejection of falsified theories, rather than falsified statements. Falsified theories are to be replaced by theories which can account for the phenomena which falsified the prior theory, that is, with greater explanatory power:
* Thus, Aristotelian mechanics explained observations of objects in everyday situations, but was falsified by Galileo’s experiments, and was itself replaced by Newtonian mechanics which accounted for the phenomena noted by Galileo (and others).
* Newtonian mechanics’ reach included the observed motion of the planets and the mechanics of gases. Or at least most of them; the size of the precession of the orbit of Mercury wasn’t predicted by Newtonian mechanics, but was by Einstein’s general relativity.
* The Youngian wave theory of light (i.e., waves carried by the luminiferous aether) replaced Newton’s (and many of the Classical Greeks’) particles of light but in its turn was falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiment, whose results were eventually understood as incompatible with an ether and was superseded by Maxwell’s electrodynamics and Einstein’s special relativity, which did account for the new phenomena.
At each stage, experimental observation made a theory untenable (i.e., falsified it) and a new theory was found which had greater explanatory power (i.e., could account for the previously unexplained phenomena), and as a result, provided greater opportunity for its own falsification.”
This seems to me to describe the process of climatology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Models are constructed, with the expectation that they will be imperfect, using all known and practicle components of a climate. Through an iterative process, they become better able to describe known climate records, using research to explain their failings. Climate models can now approximate known climate records. Possible factors are raised, eg, cosmic rays, and their effect tested and discarded if they are inconsequential or demonstrated to be irrelevant.
Paul: It seems to me this work downunder will support all my comments (fig 1 etc above) despite your latest selection. Note their comment re our little ice age
http://www.uow.edu.au/science/eesc/staff/cturney/docs/TurneyIntegratingdatasets.pdf
Luke says nobody here is going to chnage their minds – is that some sort of weird buddhist/maoist terminology? it sounds more like dogma less like karma.
Well Rog – who has changed their mind on AGW as a result of any of our discussions. H0 – hypothesis to be disproved.
John I reckon most here welcome informed scepticism and genuine debate. The tiring issue is rabid delusionists refusing to admit evidence, recanting loop thoughts, denying black is black and self-proclaiming themselves as knowledgeable sceptics despite behaving to the contrary. Delusionists are a dime a dozen, they accuse moderates of being extremists and they drown out the genuine sceptics who are few between.
Davey Elitist, call yourself out. We could, could we locate a reasonable man, argue for a judicious application of commonsense over scientific method. Lacking commonsense, instead take the common man’s view: You don’t have to be a nob to recognise one but it shortens the process of elimination. Small dogs pee higher. In cricising yr Gandi line, rog doesn’t know which side his pappadam is buttered on.
I changed my mind, but you were so full of your own importance you misread the para and continued on your own wobbly trajectory.
ps – it wasnt as a result of any of your soliloquies
1 you dont butter pappadams
2 you dont spell gandhi gandi
Rabett did a good job on the Oz LIA when he saw my post on RC:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-on-boring-holes.html
Pinxi,
I preferred you when you were La Pantera. But what’s in a name?
As a self-proclaimed nob and elitist I must refer to Francis Bacon, as did the late Sir Humphrey Appleby from time to time.
Mr. B said (speaking, no doubt, of the Kyoto Treaty) “As if you would call a physician, that is thought good for the cure of the disease you complain of but is unacquainted with your body, and therefore may put you in the way for a present cure but overthroweth your health in some other kind, and so cure the disease and kill the patient.” Verily, verily, I say unto you, you can’t beat a good metaphor.
Davey
you don’t have to resort to Bacon. If you have been keeping up with the debate, and ignore simple minded deniers, it’s really come down to a cost/benefit analysis of Kyoto type carbon trading vs mitigation as problems occur. That is, prevention, or cure.
Hence we arrive at Stern, and the debate over the validity of his analysis.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/stern-australia-must-pursue-technological-edge/2007/03/27/1174761469288.html
(Perhaps I could also expand your analogy, is it better to get the vaxination, or battle the disease. I know each year I get a flu shot.)
One thing I do know, the world climate we have is full of enough surprises, without heading into unchartered territory. The fluvax is my vote.
Hahaha very funny SJT
GWB admin used your “cost/benefit analysis” on GW and found that, apart from some melting snow, it would be of benefit.
One wonders who the deniers really are. The AGW believers are pretty heavy on denying factual data.
For example they still harp about the north pole region being free of ice within 50 years, Greenland losing ice at an alarming rate and …
The fact is that this is plainly not true, and this northern winter, (which was generally milder then the three previous rather severe ones), has seen a general increase in sea ice in most arctic areas.
In recent threads I have highlighted several facts, including huge amounts of pack ice around Iceland, with Polar Bears walking ashore; and Anchorage Alaska being ice bound for an all time record number of days.
Now we have a Worldclimate report on thickening ice in the Hudson Bay area. Data on ice thickness, and depth of snow on ice from seven sea ice and six lake ice measuring stations from around the bay, with data going back to 1958, show significant trends in increase of anual maximum ice thickness. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/01/15 more-arctic-contradiction/
Then there was the tragedy of two crew members killed in an explosion aboard British Sub. HMS Tireless, (21/03/2007) while on exercise below artic ice sheet. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17724192/displaymode/1176/rstry/17724805
Apparently the sub had trouble surfacing because of the thick sea ice, and had to move south to do so. When it did surface, it very quickly became ice bound.
Note that at the same time of the year, 48 years previously, on 17 March, 1959, USS Skate surfaced at the North Pole, in thinner sea ice conditions.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857802.jpg
Sid
I recommend you ignore worldclimatereport, or, cherry picking central, as it should otherwise be known.
Look at the long term trend for the region. Global warming does not mean the whole planet warms at once, or that some anomalies will not occur. As we are constantly reminded, the climate is a chaotic system.
One thing that people forget is that as some cold areas warm, for example, they will start to experience extra precipitation, which was previously small, because it was so cold. This will cause thickening of ice, in the short term, as the temperature warms further, that new ice will melt too.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/01/arctic-sea-ice-decline-in-the-21st-century/
To just say that one spot is getting more ice, with no real analysis, is pointless.
For example, the Antarctic is a very interesting situation. The expected warming is happening on the edges, but the interior is getting colder. It turns out this is due to the depletion of the ozone layer.
Science is not just about what, it’s also about why.
The Antarctic is getting colder due to lower GCR flux, therefore less cloud, and guess what, ice and snow has higher albedo than cloud so less solar radiation is absorbed. Svensmark is the genius who thought that one out.
References for Antartica getting much colder are? Evidence for less cloud is?
How does Svensmark show the greatest mid tropospheric warming is above Antartica itself?
It’s a pity David that you’ve ignored other simpler explanations with no discussion. But then again it’s called a literature review 🙂
Oh dear !
SJT, ‘one spot’? From Iceland to Alaska, to Hudson Bay?
You guys really do stretch the limits of reason. Glaciers melt and recede, cause, AGW. Glaciers advance and thicken, still global warming. Ice melt caused by AGW, thickening sea ice and snow on ice, same cause. Now, Antarctic interior getting colder, with ice and snow pack thickening..yep, it’s all caused by AGW.
It’s interesting that the Reality Deniers all flock to the same fountain of wisdom, for back up; Real Climate. After all, those boys continue to promote the greatest scientific swindle of modern times, the IPCC’s Shonky Stick.
David, they don’t like talk about Svensmark, and GCR Flux and solar radiation, but the point you have raised is a very good one. SJT mentions that the interior (of Antarcticia) is getting colder because of the depletion of the ozone layer. However, I have read somewhere that scientists say that the depletion of the ozone lags, and is caused by, periods of extreme cold over the south polar region. Any comments?
Sid: What happened to the latest seal cull?
And Sid old son: When did I ever quote R/C ??
Siddles you really are just a little cess pit of vitriole and you really don’t want to engage in any debate do you. I find it extraordinary that you guys jump uncritically on anything that wanders past your nose. Uncritically is the word. Suddenly “oh it must be that then”.
Is Antartica getting colder – or staying “about as cold”. Really there is little trend. Otherwise evidence not bolsh pls.
Ozone depletion lagging the cold – mmm – why don’t go find our how ozone depletion works Sid? A little education job for you.
What’s wrong with the growing body of literature – observations and models that shows the role of the circumpolar vortex and Southern Annular Mode changes in keeping Antarctica cold and changing the southern hemisphere circulation patterns. And how GHGs and ozone depletiona re implicated in that. Hint – it’s not in RC !!!
How do you explain that the greatest mid-tropheric warming is over Antarctica – what do cosmic rays have to say about that.
But no – no examination of the mainstream – coz it doesn’t suit you and you’re too intellectually lazy.
Why are you going to do about your cloud satellite series unravelling on Svensmark – wee bit of a problem hey? See Nexus – curtains for cosmic rays.
And how does Svensmark explain a rapidly warming Antarctic Peninsula – gee cosmic rays probably avoid it hey – they bounce off there 🙂
So Sid – are most of the world’s glaciers retreating or not. MOST ! Has that rate of increase accelerated? For MOST ! And if you use NZ quote recent information or we’ll just re-quote NIWA. Don’t cherrypick your favs – give us some numbers form a change.
As for the Hockey Stick. Yep Mann got touched up on his stats – fair cop. But remember right stats din’t change the outcome. But the SPM has restated Hockey Stick even stronger with new evidence. You have the leaked 4AR draft – what’s wrong with the new evidence then Sid??? What?
Like Archibald I don’t expect you’ll answer any of this as you’re just 100% political and a sly old fox.
And checking up on your selective quoting of literature which I know you haven’t checked at source. I will be. Meanwhile.. .. ..
“More recently, Gough et al. (2004) and Gagnon and Gough (2005) demonstrated trends towards earlier break-up in James Bay, along the southern shore of Hudson Bay, and in western Hudson Bay during the period 1971-2003. Trends towards later freeze-up were found for northern and northeastern Hudson Bay (Gagnon and Gough 2005); trends in other areas of Hudson Bay were not statistically significant but were in the direction of later freeze-up. Over the past 3 decades, break-up dates are occurring earlier by about 9.5 days per decade in northern James Bay and by between 5 and 8 days per decade along the southern Hudson Bay coast of Ontario.
Declining body condition in Western Hudson Bay polar bears (Stirling et al. 1999) and the recently documented trends in break-up and freeze-up dates for eastern Hudson Bay and James Bay suggest that there should be evidence of declines in body condition of bears from the Southern Hudson Bay population. Indeed, there are recent anecdotal reports of polar bears sighted along the Ontario coast that are perceived to be in poor condition (M. E. Obbard, unpublished data; Fig. 1). Here we investigate evidence for change in body condition in Southern Hudson Bay polar bears by comparing data from an earlier study conducted from 1984-86 (Kolenosky et al. 1992) with data from recent field work conducted from 2000-05.” {ENDS}
Earlier breakup in the south eh and also James Bay – not that clear cut after all – maybe something starting to happen – gee Siddles you wouldn’t be mucking us around would you mate?
Sid
The temperature of the Antarctic stratosphere causes the severity of the ozone hole to vary from year to year. Colder than average temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer temperatures lead to smaller ones.
The temperature readings from NOAA satellites and balloons during late-September 2006 showed the lower stratosphere at the rim of Antarctica was approximately nine degrees Fahrenheit colder than average, increasing the size of this year’s ozone hole to a record level 10.6 million square miles.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ozone_record.html
The 2005 ozone hole ozone hole measured 9.4 million square miles at its peak between September and mid-October, (slightly larger than previous year’s peak) – again because it was colder than average. Only twice in the last decade has the ozone hole shrunk to the size it typically was in the late 1980s. Those years, 2002 and 2004, were the warmest of the period.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ozone_five.html
cheers
Arnost
It would seem a little pointless to be concerned about the ozone layer at the poles because this layer is usually at 90 degrees to the solar angle of incidence. Add the height of this layer as well and most of the insolation passing through it will overshoot the earth altogether. Which means we are looking at the global warming equivalent of two fifths of sweet FA.
Gavin, I didn’t say you flocked to RC, I said the Reality Deniers did.
Do you count yourself as one of them?
And thanks, Arnost, for that reasoned and well referenced explanation re the antarctic ozone hole. Such a contrast to the invective of others. (Isn’t Luke a delightful fellow?)
Well Luke, the Hockey Stick, and its many re-incarnated graphs in the 4AR draft. What’s wrong with it/them? Simply put, they remove, (and deliberatly set out to do so,) any reference to, or record of, two very significant historic climatic facts; ie, the MWP, and the LIA. Why? Because if the IPCC was going to have any hope of sucessfully promoting AGW, it had to get rid of the MWP. And that is just what intercepted emails
said at the time that Mann commenced his work.
And, oh, the bears, the poor bears. Actually their health and wellbeing is greatly improved, which is reflected in their prolific breeding, and expanding populations. So anecdotal evidence and unpublished data says otherwise? Is it not the WWF and similar extremist groups that are promoting this nonsense to suck funds from a gullible public, to ‘save the bears from global warming?’ And then use those funds for self promotion and politicising the issue. Where did such tactics come from? Well. the Aust. head of WWF, Greg Bourne was the former head of British Petroleum, so maybe the campaign is being helped along by ‘big oil’.
Sid
once the hunting was regulated, the populations recovered. Their long term viability will soon be put to the test. You are confusing the actual threats to them. One is hunting, that has been dealt with. One is warming, that hasn’t been dealt with.
Sid just ducked the lot. What a total shonk. No answers and I don’t expect any either.
Intercepted emails – oh yes – what utter crap.
Nothing except Siddles doesn’t like it. Well Sid I don’t like the fact that you don’t like it. Isn’t that scientific?
And the ozone stuff has been posted here ad nauseum Sid – pay attention.
Sid: Seal hunt? please.
If you click on:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle
or google on “The Great Global Warming Swindle”
you will find compelling proof, which is supported by a number of climate experts that I personally know, that have no vested interest, but who only want the truth.
There are broadly 3 types of people who support the CO2 theory:
-the lunatic greenies (enough said)
-those paid a lot of money to support CO2, even though most have no expertise in climate (anyone who dares disagree with these people, are in effect attacking their incomes, and thus their livelihood.. which to them is a personal attack, and they will say anything to defend themselves)
-the gullible public who believe the above greenies and so-called scientists with vested financial interest.
Which of the above 3 groups do the Al-Gore-clones at this site fit into?
Oh no – Jen’s left the gate unlocked again.
Yes SJT, hunting was an actual threat to Polar Bears, until regulated. ‘Warming’, or AGW, is not an actual threat to P B’s; it’s only a perceived threat, promoted by the AGW believers. The threat could never be proved to be actual, nor could AGW be proved to be actual, or factual.
And Gavin, tell us what did happen to the latest seal cull? I’m all ears.
Any comments on Seven Thirty Reports bit tnt. on the IPCC’s dire predictions for Australia? All the usual scare stuff put together by the Political Commissars at the IPCC. Floods, Droughts, Fires, Heat, Rising sea levels, you name it it’s all there, and Jen, do you believe it, more dire predictions for the MDB.
It seems that they are trying to out Gore Gore.
Nostradamus, Elmer Gantry and Mother Shipton would be proud of them.
So more rampant lies from shonky Sid.
Pls quote the IPCC’s dire predictions for Australia. What is the actual sea level rise Sid.
What are the exact IPCC’s dire predictions for the MDB Sid? What exactly?
Talking of the LIA and MWP, I understand that the ‘Holocene Maximum’ is next in line for the straight line treatment from ‘The Hockey Team.’
Sid: According to ABC radio, the hunt was cancelled. All the early season pups had either drowned or drifted away.
Well Gavin, if the pups are gone, maybe cod numbers will increase.
Luke, it was all on the 7.30 Report, if you didn’t see it, get the transcript from them. Actually I’ll try and get it, and post some of their nonsense here.
Paul’s post is interesting; it stands to reason that the Holocene Maximum would be the next in line for the ‘Hockey Teams’ straight line treatment. One wonders who the IPCC (hockey team) will get to ‘peer review’ their own work on that one?
Yes I’ve seen the transcript from their web site Sid – but no context – no document. Very scanty stuff at this point. On something like this I prefer to reasd the document first as the press love to sensationalise.
As for Hockey Stick Sid – do you undertstand yourself the statistical issues involved – what the future recomemndations are. What the draft 4AR says on H Stick II – and what’s wrong with it. Sid – big on the biff – little on the evidence?
Paul
Re your 12:07 post…
The Hockey team still has a long way to go before they straight line the temp to the Holocene maximum.
See fig 1.2 and 1.3 in the below
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
cheers
Arnost
+ 6.7C downunder by 2080?
no bull hey
I understand that the Hockey Stick, (origional and 4AR mark ll re-incarnation) is a cynical attempt by the ‘Hockey Team’ (IPCC) to remove historical climate facts that demolish their great 21st. centuary Scientific Fable of “Man Made Global Warming”.
Their smoothed out shaft is straight and true enough for Harry Potter to play Quidditch on.
Sid
that’s a complete misrepresentation of the data, and you know it. The margin for error and changes in it are not true and straight in any sense of the term.
Maybe, but the sure got rid of the MWP and LIA.
Which is what the intended to do.
Sorry, my y was not working.
6.7 C by 2080,lots of bull I’d say!
Conspiracy theories again? Maybe the answer is that the LIA is there in the hockey stick, and the MWP was not a global phenomenon?
Do you mean like the way the Mauna Loa CO2 readings may not be a global phenomena, SJT?
Ian
there has already been a post on the comparison the Mauna Loa data, compared to the South Pole data. They agree. I reposted it, because you seemed to miss the first time.
You can look them up yourself this time.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel-flask/sio-keel-flask.html
Here you are Ian – there’s bugger all in it.
Realclimate discusses sea level projections, and the comparison with the TAR and AR4 stated estimates. Apparently, they have changed the method used to state the estimated rises.
And the models are wrong again? Yes, they underestimated the rise. Which just goes to show, so much emphasis is placed on what about if the models are wrong and the change is only minor. What if the models are wrong, and the change is large than estimated?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the-ipcc-sea-level-numbers/#more-427
Since I get a lot out of reading any graphs I went to RC on this one (hey Sid) and reckon
1) Those station readings are too erratic for your average joe.
2) The IPCC curves are leaded
3) The rate of change is too fast for comfort.
4) It puts normal high tide up our nose now.
The last time I physically looked at NSW tides on the beach I concluded we don’t need any big storms.
Warwick Hughes has kindly put my latest presentation on his website at:http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=102
Imminent cooling is predicted due to solar factors. In fact, as March in the US is the sixth coolest on record, cooling has already started. Solar minimum may not be until 2009!
David
a scientist would NEVER make a claim like “In fact, as March in the US is the sixth coolest on record, cooling has already started.”
If you want to cherry pick, the winter was the warmest on record in the US.
But as David’s paper shows – any consideration of stats is unnecessary. 🙂