“TIME Magazine believes that Gore and “global warming” sermons are a great combination. That’s why their environmental doctrines are so very bizarre, I guess.
How bizarre? Try reading TIME Magazine’s “Global Warming Survival Guide” dated, April 9, 2007, and the “51 Things You Can Do to Make a Difference”.
Rule 26: “Plant a bamboo fence”, because it feels good?
Unprecedented levels of idiocy aside, there’s plenty to laugh about. Indeed, I was so moved by the weirdness of it all that I wrote to TIME:
Your comically unbalanced cover story on “global warming” reminded me of why, I, for one, am not a believer. “If droughts and wildfires, floods and crop failures … and the images of drowning polar bears didn’t quiet most of the remaining global-warming doubters,” claimed the hysterical Jeffrey Kluger, “the hurricane-drive destruction of New Orleans did”. Actually, it didn’t. Many scientists have said to blame Hurricane Katrina on global warming is absurd. In Australia’s case, we have had more devastating droughts before. As for “wildfires”, these have more to do with arson than global warming. Could TIME please consider the other side of the story?
My letter, to the editor’s credit, appeared in TIME’s Inbox section under the subheading “Global Hysterics?”
But what really made me laugh was the fact I had to remove my magazine from its plastic wrapper to read the damn thing. (States Rule 24: “Just say no to plastic bags”.)
Meanwhile even the politicised United Nations freely concedes crop harvests are booming. Just analyse the satellite images. TIME must employ lazy reporters.
Read the complete article here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5825
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I would guess the stupidity is that they had to come up with ’51’ things.
When a scientist says you cannot say New Orleans was due to global warming, they are not saying it wasn’t due to global warming either, they are saying it is impossible to attribute any one event to global warming. It could well be that the higher sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico had a lot to do with Katrina.
Science journalism is in a woeful state, I regularly am nonplussed by computer articles that are just uninformed and wrong. Y2K for example was a beat up of incredible proportions. A lot of work had to be done to ensure the date problem was fixed, but it had to be done or else a lot of businesses would have had severe consequences. In that sense, I guess, the hysteria was useful, all major companies did review the issue and ensure their software would work, and make the fixes that had to be done if it didn’t work.
The logic of the author of this piece, however, puzzles me.
“Your comically unbalanced cover story on “global warming” reminded me of why, I, for one, am not a believer.”
Because Time is guilty of bad journalism, he doesn’t believe in AGW? Bad journalism has nothing to do with science.
Supposedly global warming wasn’t around to cause this one.
http://www.randomhouse.com/features/isaacsstorm/book/index.html
You can add the Federation Drought in Australia to the Galveston hurricane as events that are ignored in the current debate.
The same time period as well!
Ummmm, was there a common climatic connection at that time?
If you go to the Climate Audit site there is a debate about whether whitewashed Stevenson screens record different temps to screens painted with modern paints because of the different Infra Red absorption characteristics of the paint used.
The mind boggles with the minutia that the discussion is getting to.
Read it on OLO before I read your post Jen and agree with the exasperation of the author.
SJT – there’s a very clear link between the bad journalism and the bad science ; either the scientists and policy makers aren’t coming out and saying robustly enough that the threat posed by global warming is being sensationalised to a ridiculous extent by the media – including Gore – or they are saying that and it’s not being reported.
IMHO the greatest damage to the AGW cause is the reluctance of the rational AGW proponents – many of whom comment here – to acknowledge this exaggeration , accept the deficiencies in the scientific evidence ( nothing is ” settled ” until all inconsistencies are resolved and all variables are accounted for ) and consider ideologically challenging solutions ( nuclear ) yet still reasonably argue that the balance of evidence is that the current warming is caused by human activity.
Instead , most of them take a mirror position to the extreme sceptics and are outraged at the comparison.
There is no established linkage between ANY individual weather event ( hot or cold , flood or drought etc ) and AGW theory.
It also bolsters the AGW credentials to accept the benefits of warming;
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html
and the flourishing crop yields reported by the UN.
Are you always balanced in your reporting on global warming, Jen? You arent, are you? Remember for example when you leapt on a paper re supposed methane emissions from plants to discredit AGW and Kyoto?
Now that the Max Planck paper has been discredited, why havent you alerted your readres?
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/04/27/the_missing_news_of_the_missin.php
Jim
I don’t think you understand science. Nothing is ever ‘settled’. We are still trying to understand gravity. That doesn’t stop us using it’s effects every day.
Jim – weeeellll – is a drought weather or quasi-climate. 5-6 years of drought ?? It’s not weather which is now to 10 days time phenomena. Climate has been described as “the weather you’d expect”. Of course there are many formal definitions. You can make a case for and against there being an AGW aspect to the current drought. Historical precedent but observations as to changed circumstances which relate to AGW. Or a mixture of both is you want to be really trendy.
Pity though if you live at Wagga and not in Greenland.
And there has been one analysis of contributing aspects to Katrina sea surface temperatures – and found an Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and a climate change signal.
No I understand that pretty well SJT.
What I don’t understand is the contradiction inherent in people such as yourself who lecture others on scientific method, not making a peep when the science of AGW is declared ” settled” and the debate “over” by AGW proponents?
If you’re truly of a scientific bent,that should concern you?
Never been accused of trendiness Luke – but the same device you’re employing here is pretty handy for any position;
* the current drought MAY be linked to AGW
* the cooling in Antartica MAY be evidence that CO2 has nothing to do with rising temps elsewhere
etc etc
Yes Jim you can say MAY – but interestingly enough the reason it’s still cold is related to the Australian drought (in part).
Of course the troposphere above Antarctica is warming more rapidly than anywhere else too – but climatologists are hesitant to blame AGW.
And have you noticed things are going faster than projected?
Science 4 May 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5825, p. 709
DOI: 10.1126/science.1136843
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Brevia
Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
Stefan Rahmstorf,1 Anny Cazenave,2 John A. Church,3 James E. Hansen,4 Ralph F. Keeling,5 David E. Parker,6 Richard C. J. Somerville5
We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.
1 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 14482 Potsdam, Germany.
2 Laboratoire d’Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie Spatiales, 31400 Toulouse, France.
3 Marine and Atmospheric Research and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Hobart Tasmania, 7001, Australia.
4 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, NY 10025, USA.
5 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
6 Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK.
Jim, by your logic, we could spend the next 100000 years considering climate change and solutions but because knowledge is never ‘settled’ (inconsistencies are resolved and all variables are accounted for) we never take a yes or no position.
We’ll just wander the world in a quasi state of never quite knowing what might happen but just hope by considering things will be ok.
As far as I have seen AGW proponents do consider the benefits of some warming. They also acknowledge that if the current warming trend continues unabted for over 50-100 years due to CO2 – we are up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
And credibility comes from considering ‘ideologically challenging’ solutions like nuclear? Give me a break. Try ideologically challenging ideas like according to the worlds best scientists humans are systematically destroying their ability to occupy the planet – all in the name of ‘development’
I would argue that continuing to consider idiotic solutions like nuclear in the face of overwhelming evidence suggesting it is a waste of time makes you sound like you have no idea, but forgive me for taking a definitive position.
I think there will be winners and losers out of climate change – Australia & African farmers lose – American wheat farmers gain ! Really all depends on rainfall. Which is the big issue that needs further resolution.
Ecologically though for natural systems the science is now starting to talk about “subsistitute climates” so one might consider big changes?
And of course humanity doesn’t cope well with current climate variability. Extreme events tend to wreak havoc today – increasing their frequency doesn’t sound that good ?
Re-read the post SJT – “….still reasonably argue that the balance of evidence is that the current warming is caused by human activity.”
I’m more than happy to act based on the balance of evidence from the experts.
Just as I’m happy to accept the view of the experts advocating nuclear energy as a real option currently available.
If there is genuine scientific evidence ( as opposed to ideologically driven opinion ) that nuclear is a waste of time, where is it?
What is truly idiotic is selective appeal to rational scientific logic then a quick segue to irrational and emotive ideology.
New Orleans wasn’t caused by global warming. However, a major portion of the catastrophe was directly caused by environmentalists who blocked flood control efforts, claiming levees, dikes, etc. would damage “the environment.” As a result, neighborhoods were devastated by flooding.
Sorry SJT – my post was directed to Anthony and should have been addressed accordingly.
Gee Jim, why not nuclear? thats a tough one.
Overlay the following risks:
non renewable resource (current technology)
history of project cost blow-outs and delays
nuclear proliferation
increasing global instability and spread of ideology that make killing yourself in the name of the cause commendable
human error
cost of nuclear generation
cost of waste disposal
water consumption in nuclear plats (current technology over 1500l per MWh!)
damage from uranium mining (water use/contamination, radioactive tailings)
Then consider that once you take on all that risk, electricty is less than 30% of global emissions, the best available scientific recommendations are for deep cuts in the next 10-20 years and it generally take at least this amount of time to bring one nuke plant online.
still considering Jim? I’d be interested to hear why? Don’t tell me the energy expeort Ziggy – ‘I’ll do anything the government wants me to as long as it pays’ has convinced you nuclear is essential for zero emissions baseload?
Meanwhile the ‘rationalists’ are pondering whether or not to act because they require ‘certainty’.
Give Time magazine a break. They are there to be sensationalist. It’s like criticising new idea for embellishing stories. Anyone reading time looking for the cold hard science is delusional. Bad journalism is bad journalism and as far as I can tell this blog fits well and truly in that catefory.
No Anthony – as inexplicable as it may seem, I’ll stick with the scientific experts rather than rely on political rants.
But I am interested in hearing your alternative – one that meets existing energy requirements, is emission free and is based on current and proven technology?
Hold on there, planet punks, the data on sea level rises shows no such speeding up. The key part of the latest IPCC report was the reduction in the extreme rise estimates.
Indeed, the only way that the pace of sea level rise could increase is if the pace of ocean circulation were to increase. And given that we are looking at an 800 year cycle, the prospects of that even being measurable, let alone significant, is minimal.
The co-efficient of thermal expansion of water is 0.00021 for each whole degree C (at 20C). And this means that a whole degree of warming, for the 1360 million km3 of our oceans, will amount to a volume increase of only 0.2856 million km3. And this, when spread over our 355 million km2 of ocean surface gives 8.045×10-4km. That is, 1 degree C of thermal expansion will only raise global sea level by 80cm.
But even if global mean temperatures increase by 1 degree C between 1940 and 2040 it does not mean that we will see an 80cm rise in sea level by 2040. That is because there will only have been a half century of ocean circulation with an average 0.25 degrees warmer inputs and another half century of circulation with an average of 0.75 degrees warmer inputs. For simplicity sake we could call this one century of 0.5 degrees warmer inputs.
The whole 80cm of sea level rise will only take place if the temperature remains at least 1 degree warmer for the whole 800 years needed for complete ocean circulation.
So the most sea level rise from thermal expansion we are likely to observe by 2040 (assuming the ice age has not started by then) will be 100/800ths of 40cm, or a whole 5cm.
If there is another 2 degrees of warming over the next century from 2040 to 2140 then the first degree of warming will account for another 10cm and there will be another 10cm for the second 2 degrees that has averaged only 1 degree over that century.
The total absorvable sea level rise from thermal expansion by 2140 will only be 25cm above the 1940 benchmark.
And for those who may be tempted to run the old Greenland ice melt chestnut. It is worth noting that the likely 5cm of thermal sea level rise by 2040 will total only 17,850 for the century or an average of only 178.5 km3 each year.
The current gross melt volume from Greenland is only 239 km3 but this is before considering about 95 km3 of new ice formation each winter. So the current net rate of Greenland ice melt of 144 km3 is only enough to add another 4cm of sea level rise between 1940 and 2040.
It should also be pointed out that there are some estimates that the cycle of complete ocean circulation is more like 1200 years, not 800. And if this is the case, the actual amounts of thermal sea level rise will only be 66% of the numbers given above.
What is abundantly clear from this analysis is that the IPCC Scarenarios predicting 1 metre plus sea level rises have incorporated some very seriously false assumptions, coupled with outright gonzo accounting practices.
Just one little correction to the above post folks. I forgot to adjust the Greenland ice volumes for the 10% loss of volume on melting. So the net 144 km3 of current annual ice melt will amount to only 130 km3 of additional water, at just above 0 degrees C.
And this will only increase sea level, between 1940 and 2040 by 3.64cm, instead of the 4cm mentioned above. In fact, as this cold water will circulate and serve to slightly lower average ocean temperatures, and thereby offset some of the warming, the likely rise from Greenland ice melt may be slightly lower still.
Jim, what scientific experts? what do they say about nukes? where did I invoke a political rant as opposed to observable reality?
would you have Nukes for Australia? Clean coal? Have you seen water shortages have just driven coal base load over $70Mwh. Looks like wind is viable without a carbon price.
How about energy efficiency, biogas, solar thermal, Hybrid wind/biomass, wave, tidal energy – all available now, all capable of producing base load and/or predictable supply. To top it off next gen solar will make coal obsolete.
Hmmm, that should cover it.
I know I am off the topic and avoiding Ian’s attempt at sandpit climate science, but hey, I find the pro nukes types way more fun to play with
Oi Ian !! – see above regardless of envelopes the rise is already running on the high end !.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843)
And of course an upper bound from http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf would give us temperature rise of 6.2C for 2X CO2 WOW !!
Anyway you’ve now got your answer on lava too !!
See http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002019.html#comments comment 92.
Now Luke, their own analysis makes it very clear that the upper 6.2C for a doubling of CO2 produces outcomes that do not fit the proxies. Even the 2.8C has some significant anomalies.
The current rate of increase of 1ppm per year leaves us 390 years for the doubling to take place. Factor in mid-range GDP/capita for India and China, especially on a Japanese/Taiwanese model rather than the USA urban sprawl model, and an absolute worst case scarenario with zero technology gains and we are still only looking at 2C by 2140.
And that means an average of only 1C over the century.
And time is up for this sleazy and deceptive focus on satellite sea surface temperature data. It is not, and can never be, a proxy for global mean ocean temperature. It is global mean ocean temperature which defines the scale of sea level rise.
This is another classic deception by the climate spivs. On one hand they are telling us that all the CO2 will be concentrated in the upper 100 metres of ocean and this layer will produce acidification. But on the other hand they calculate sea level rise on the assumption that all the heat is evenly mixed through the entire water column, and immediately.
Clearly, if sea surface layers increase in temperature while deeper layers remain cold with minimal mixing then the calculation of the rise in sea level can only be based on the thermal expansion of the layers that have actually warmed up.
For the record, 355 million km2 of the worlds oceans multiplied by the upper 100m of warming water amounts to a volume of only 35.5 million km3 which, when heated by 1 degree C, will increase in volume by (35.5m x 0.00021 = 0.007455m) or only 7,455 km3.
And when this is spread over the 355 million km of sea surface we get a sad little sea level rise of only 0.000021km or 21 millimetres.
There is a simpler way of calculating it. 100 metres of warming water column x 0.00021 = 0.021 metres of sea level rise from thermal expansion.
You guys are SO SPRUNG!! big time.
CO2 increasing at the rate of 1ppm/year Ian? Where did you hear that? I think you have fallen for some misleading statistics.
SJT, I have the entire Mauna Loa data set, courtesy of Dr Ralph Keeling, from 1958 to present on file. This has been sorted by decade and compares change between annual peaks, annual amplitude and troughs etc. The mean annual change for 1990 to 1999 was 1.48ppm but this was distorted by an anomalous 3.7ppm in 1998, linked in some way to the El Nino.
The current decade is incomplete but ranges from a low of 1.07ppm in 2004 and a high of 2.75 in 2003. This does show an increasing trend from the 60’s and 70’s when annual mean increase went from 0.85ppm to 1.21ppm. The variations in annual amplitude of between 5 and 8ppm, reveal a significant “natural” element contributing to the increase.
The 1998 increase of 3.71ppm, for example, is equivalent to 19Gt of CO2 of which only 7Gt can be traced to anthropogenic emissions.
So in relation to the above post the correct number should probably be in the order of 1.3ppm annual increase. And if this were to remain constant it would take 300 years to double CO2 levels to 780ppm.
Jeez I hope you were on your best behaviour with Ralph and didn’t call him a spiv or climate flesh crawling scumoid or worse ! He’s a serious person.
Yes Anthony – I’m trumped by your non-political,scientifically based rant, sorry analysis.
Renewables are the only answer , all the technological problems are solved ,the next generation of solar technology will be even better, renewables meet baseload and peak requirements and the experts you’ve cited all back you up!
Unfortunately , you still haven’t convinced me ; as incisive as your argument is – just me I s’pose!
I’ll stick with poor old Ziggy the parrot and his paid stooges.
Well Ian – that should sharpen the future debate on sea rises!
Look forward to the coming jousts!
GAME ON !
But in terms of being SPRUNG big time Jim – Ian has not referenced how any of the current work is done? He’s firing his rhetorical AK47 skywards without any thought for life, property or probity.
From the AR4 http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Ch05.pdf
Global mean sea level has been rising. From 1961 to
2003, the average rate of sea level rise was 1.8 ± 0.5
mm yr–1. For the 20th century, the average rate was 1.7 ± 0.5
mm yr–1, consistent with the TAR estimate of 1 to 2 mm yr–1.
There is high confidence that the rate of sea level rise
has increased between the mid-19th and the mid-20th
centuries. Sea level change is highly non-uniform spatially,
and in some regions, rates are up to several times the
global mean rise, while in other regions sea level is falling.
There is evidence for an increase in the occurrence of
extreme high water worldwide related to storm surges, and
variations in extremes during this period are related to the
rise in mean sea level and variations in regional climate.
There are uncertainties in the estimates of the contributions
to sea level change but understanding has significantly
improved for recent periods. For the period 1961 to 2003,
the average contribution of thermal expansion to sea level
rise was 0.4 ± 0.1 mm yr–1. As reported in the TAR, it is
likely that the sum of all known contributions for this period
is smaller than the observed sea level rise, and therefore it
is not possible to satisfactorily account for the processes
causing sea level rise. However, for the period 1993 to
2003, for which the observing system is much better, the
contributions from thermal expansion (1.6 ± 0.5 mm yr–1)
and loss of mass from glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland
and Antarctic Ice Sheets together give 2.8 ± 0.7 mm yr–1.
For the latter period, the climate contributions constitute
the main factors in the sea level budget, which is closed to
within known errors.
Ocean biogeochemistry is changing. The total inorganic
carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118 ±
19 GtC between the end of the pre-industrial period (about
1750) and 1994 and continues to increase. It is more likely
than not that the fraction of emitted carbon dioxide that was
taken up by the oceans has decreased, from 42 ± 7% during
1750 to 1994 to 37 ± 7% during 1980 to 2005. This would
be consistent with the expected rate at which the oceans
can absorb carbon, but the uncertainty in this estimate does
not allow firm conclusions. The increase in total inorganic
carbon caused a decrease in the depth at which calcium
carbonate dissolves, and also caused a decrease in surface
ocean pH by an average of 0.1 units since 1750. Direct
observations of pH at available time series stations for the
last 20 years also show trends of decreasing pH at a rate of
0.02 pH units per decade. There is evidence for decreased
oxygen concentrations, likely driven by reduced rates of
water renewal, in the thermocline (~100–1,000 m) in most
ocean basins from the early 1970s to the late 1990s.
GEE IAN – WAS THAT A PH DROP of 0.02 UNITS PER DECADE !!
AND
The patterns of observed changes in global ocean heat
content and salinity, sea level, thermal expansion, water
mass evolution and biogeochemical parameters described
in this chapter are broadly consistent with the observed
ocean surface changes and the known characteristics of the
large-scale ocean circulation.
GEE IS THAT RIGHT?
Maybe Ian should read the 4AR first and put the AK47 away??
It may surprise people to know that Al Gore didn’t write the 4AR.
Read it and weep dudes: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
And just think – it’s probably a conservative view too.
Ian
the concern is that carbon based fuel use will be accellerating, not slowing, so the rate of increase per year will be more than we have seen in the past. So far, the rate has increased more than the IPCC has predicted. *Wrong again, IPCC 🙁 *
Luke,
I know that you do insist, but really the evidence does not support your assertion that the AR4 is conservative in its conclusions.
There is a growing debate over the lack of rigor that is applied to climate science in comparison to other branches of science, mainly revolving around the data that is used. See link below.
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html
It’s still pretty thin Luke – prior to 1993 it ” ….is not possible to satisfactorily account for the processes
causing sea level rise. ”
and
” This would
be consistent with the expected rate at which the oceans
can absorb carbon, but the uncertainty in this estimate does
not allow firm conclusions. ”
“The total inorganic
carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118 ±
19 GtC between the end of the pre-industrial period (about
1750) and 1994 and continues to increase. ”
How do they know that?
What measurements were conducted in 1750?
Still seems to leave open the possibility that there MAY be factors at work we don’t know about.
But that’s true of many things of course.
After years of contemplation Mel is an expert on planks. Next we will be enthralled by his insights on “balance”
Stay focussed Mel
Peter – I don’t “insist” – simply suggest. Why –
(a) reports of “dumbing” down by political minders and tension between scientists and policy types
(b) many reports late last year of glacial instability that did not make the AR4 cut-off date (and I’m not being alarmist)
(c) the paper I cited above above on high level responses
(d) Artic ice melting quicker than models
Peter – your link also says “but we may conclude now that science itself has indeed corrected claims of premature knowledge” – seems to me that the authors think after a shoot-out things are back in a better frame. Do they have any issues with the AR4 treatment of this area? The comments indicate that the controversy is still far from over.
Jim – encourage you to examine the rest the of the AR4 – not to convince you one way or the other – just that it is a long way from Al Gore and newspaper accounts.
On the ocean content – essentially the distinct isotopic profile of burnt fossil fuel carbon produce a quite good estimate the changes in ocean chemistry (well understood) this would cause.
Has been previously discussed in this hallowed blog in an infamous Mott-Luke showdown. Ian got done like a dinner 🙂 (again)
It said:
Science 16 July 2004:
Vol. 305. no. 5682, pp. 367 – 371
The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2
Christopher L. Sabine,1* Richard A. Feely,1 Nicolas Gruber,2 Robert M. Key,3 Kitack Lee,4 John L. Bullister,1 Rik Wanninkhof,5 C. S. Wong,6 Douglas W. R. Wallace,7 Bronte Tilbrook,8 Frank J. Millero,9 Tsung-Hung Peng,5 Alexander Kozyr,10 Tsueno Ono,11 Aida F. Rios12
Using inorganic carbon measurements from an international survey effort in the 1990s and a tracer-based separation technique, we estimate a global oceanic anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) sink for the period from 1800 to 1994 of 118 ± 19 petagrams of carbon. The oceanic sink accounts for 48% of the total fossil-fuel and cement-manufacturing emissions, implying that the terrestrial biosphere was a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere of about 39 ± 28 petagrams of carbon for this period. The current fraction of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions stored in the ocean appears to be about one-third of the long-term potential.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5682/367?ck=nck
Variations in surface concentrations are related to the length of time that the waters have been exposed to the atmosphere and to the buffer capacity, or Revelle factor, for seawater (12, 13). This factor describes how the partial pressure of CO2 in seawater (PCO2) changes for a given change in DIC. Its value is proportional to the ratio between DIC and alkalinity, where the latter term describes the oceanic charge balance. Low Revelle factors are generally found in the warm tropical and subtropical waters, and high Revelle factors are found in the cold high latitude waters (Fig. 3). The capacity for ocean waters to take up anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere is inversely proportional to the value of the Revelle factor; hence, the lower the Revelle factor, the higher the oceanic equilibrium concentration of anthropogenic CO2 for a given atmospheric CO2 perturbation. The highest anthropogenic CO2 concentrations (60 µmol kg–1) are found in the subtropical Atlantic surface waters because of the low Revelle factors in that region. By contrast, the near-surface waters of the North Pacific have a higher Revelle factor at comparable latitudes and consequently lower anthropogenic CO2 concentrations primarily because North Pacific alkalinity values are as much as 100 µmol kg–1 lower than those in the North Atlantic (Fig. 3).
Future changes.
On the time scales of several thousands of years, it is estimated that 90% of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions will end up in the ocean (24). Because of the slow mixing time of the ocean, however, the current oceanic uptake fraction is only about one-third of this value. Studies of the coupled carbon-climate system have suggested that on decadal time scales, the ocean may become a less efficient sink for anthropogenic CO2 because of positive feedbacks in the coupled carbon-climate system (25)— consistent with the suggestion of a decreasing ocean-uptake fraction noted from Table 1.
There is a potential for both positive and negative feedbacks between the ocean and atmosphere, including changes in both the physics (e.g., circulation, stratification) and biology (e.g., export production, calcification) of the ocean. These processes are still not well understood. On the time scales of decades to centuries, however, most of the known chemical feedbacks are positive. If the surface ocean PCO2 concentrations continue to increase in proportion with the atmospheric CO2 increase, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from preindustrial levels will result in a 30% decrease in carbonate ion concentration and a 60% increase in hydrogen ion concentration. As the carbonate ion concentration decreases, the Revelle factor increases and the ocean’s ability to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere is diminished. The impact of this acidification can already be observed today and could have ramifications for the biological feedbacks in the future (26). If indeed the net feedbacks are primarily positive, the required socioeconomic strategies to stabilize CO2 in the future will be much more stringent than in the absence of such feedbacks. Future studies of the carbon system in the oceans should be designed to identify and quantitatively assess these feedback mechanisms to provide input to models that will determine the ocean’s future role as a sink for anthropogenic CO2. {ENDS}
Luke, Thanks for agreeing with me re: the controversy is far from over. It sure is far from over. As I’ve indicated ad nauseum its all in the data. As long as their remain serious questions about the data that feeds into the climate models, in one form or another, I’ll continue to question the certainty that some commentators give to the models.
Peter “Some commentators?” certainly not me, hey.
Observations, models and reports aside there is only one clue that counts, it’s the balance between all the water and ice. Masses of both act as the dampening factor; therefore our H20 v ice ratio becomes the only true measure of earth’s surface heat.
Peter: Our only witness needs to be the change at the margins.
As usual, Luke claims victory in the third person but has a remarkable resemblance to the monty python knight. Could see some reversion to insult and defamation any moment now.
It is true that the IPCC has pulled its head in significantly on the actual reporting of sea level rises but much of the bullshit remains in the projections.
Lets just take a look at the worst case scarenario of 6C sensitivity, a 6C rise in temperature from a doubling of CO2, over the next century. This would produce a potential total sea level rise of 4.8 metres but we would see very little of that by year 2100.
This is because the average rise over the century would only be 3C which would mean a nominal rise of only 2.4 metres. But as the next century would only account for between 1/8th and 1/12th of the oceanic circulation cycle then the actual rise due to thermal expansion can only be between 20cm and 30cm. There would be another 40-60cm by the end of the following century.
And this is for a sensitivity level that has already been ruled out because it failed to produce results even vaguely consistent with the paleoclimatic proxies.
Note Sabine’s statement that, “The current fraction of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions stored in the ocean appears to be about one-third of the long-term potential”. This indicates that Sabine has not properly considered oceanic circulation because the period of significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions, (the past century) is still only between 1/12th and 1/8th of the ocean cycle. So even if surface waters were at full saturation level, which they are not, the current fraction could not be much more than 1/12th to 1/8th of oceanic potential.
It is also worth noting that the IPCC’s estimate of the past decadal sea level rise from ice melt etc is 1.2mm +- 0.2 or 12cm per century. This amounts to an annual volume of 426 km3 of water from 473 km3 of ice.
Note also that the speeding up of the melt rates in the arctic, as claimed by ScamBoss et al, is of Arctic sea ice which makes no significant contribution to increased ocean volumes due to the drop in volume when ice melts and the fact that it is already in the ocean.
The research from Greenland indicates that Glacial melting can, and have done, speed up and slow down so extrapolating from the past decade of speeded up glacial movement is unwise.
In any event, the attempts by Luke and co to portray the IPCC as overly conservative should be seen in their proper light. No basis in fact and deliberate political spin.
This is a remarkable discussion.
Seems that a lot of people just want to shut down humanity and watch the oceans rise.
If the oceans rise.
Shutting down humanity will be good enough for them, though, even if they accomplish nothing else.
The DDT holocaust proves they’re impervious to human misery.
Personally, I wouldn’t take any advice from misanthropists on planetary health.
Taking their advice could kill you, and your kids, and actually, the population-reductionists would like that.
Schiller – after considering your input. Nuh all brownwash from those who want to persecute minority groups like organic farmers. Just imagine “Have you or your family ever eaten or accidently eaten organic food. Do you know anyone who has eaten organic food. Do you associate with these people. Have you ever felt unnatural urges passing an organic food display.”.
Anyway back in the real world of doing Ian slowly.
The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003,
global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the
surface to a depth of 700 m. Consistent with the Third
Assessment Report (TAR), global ocean heat content (0–
3,000 m) has increased during the same period, equivalent
to absorbing energy at a rate of 0.21 ± 0.04 W m–2 globally
averaged over the Earth’s surface. Two-thirds of this energy
is absorbed between the surface and a depth of 700 m.
And Nature abhors an envelope.
The recent trend in the surface ocean pH is minus 0.02 pH units per decade. Poor little marine critters are going to have their exoskeletons fried.
Schiller of course supports Nazi like book burnings – especially the whole 4AR report.
Anyone keen on sea level in our time can do well with a glance at wiki
google: sea level wiki 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
and warming in general
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
cheers
gavin
see also scientists opposing the mainstream and FAR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Should we all take our eye off the margins?
Now you are getting tedious, Luke.
The statement, “Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m”, can be easily misread by journalists and other morons as a reference to the whole water body.
The Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans make up 97.1% of total ocean volume and they have an average depth of 4.05km. And this means that 17.3% of ocean volume has increased by 0.10C from 1961 to 2003. The other 82.7% has done very little.
And as water makes up 99% of the total mass that can be warmed in a “global warming” event then the actual amount of global warming over the past four decades appears to be in the order of 17% of 0.10C or 0.017C (0.00425C per decade).
It is interesting to cross check the IPCC estimates because it is only the 700m water column that is capable of expanding because it is the only part of the total water body that has warmed. And that means the total ocean area of 355 million km2 x 0.7km depth = 248.5 million km3 that we need to apply 1/10th of the coefficient of thermal expansion. (0.00021 for each whole degree C)
And 248.5 km3m x 0.000021 = 5,218 km3 in total expansion volume which, when divided by 355 mkm2 of ocean area, amounts to 1.47-5 km or 14.7 millimetres of sea level rise. That is 3.5 millimetres per decade or 0.35mm/year which appears to have been rounded up by the IPCC to be 0.4mm/year from 1961 to 2003.
But this raises serious questions as to how they arrived at their estimate of 1.2mm/year from 1993 to 2003 as it is 3.5 times higher. And the projections into the future are likely to be similarly flawed. Are they based on surface temperatures only? Have they properly calculated the rate of ocean circulation?
Ian
You will be happy, ocean burps are back in the news.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/11/1178390554472.html?from=top5
“Scientists at Bristol University say a previously unexplained surge of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere in recent years is due to more greenhouse gas escaping from trees, plants and soils. Global warming was making vegetation less able to absorb the carbon pollution pumped out by human activity.
Such a shift would worsen the gloomy predictions of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which warned last week that there is less than a decade to tackle rising emissions to avoid the worst effects of global warming.
The prediction came as an equally stark warning was issued that global warming was contributing to increased conflict over dwindling resources.”
And Peter, you will note that just as the models were wrong about the rate of change in the Arctic, they may be also wrong about CO2 absorption from the carbon cycle.
Don’t forget, we know that the earth will warm due to increase in CO2, that’s a given. The question has always been how serious will the ‘enhanced’ effect due to feedback mechanisms be. You can wait it out, and never take an informed guess, or you can take a serious stab at it with models. (And models are used in most areas of science). Just remember, the models are just as likely to underestimate how serious this could be, as overestimate. Since scientists hate being wrong, they are more likely to underestimate.
We can take a considered risk management approach, which all responsible large organisations do these days, or just hope, which is not a recognised risk management strategy. All those organisations which are following risk management strategies are also working from imperfect models. That’s just the nature of the game, but planning for something is always preferable to just hoping it goes away.
Ian – you really are full of bulldust aren’t you. So Ian is going to take on John Church from CSIRO on sea level rise. Your pomposity and sense of self-importance knows no bounds does it. Ian thinks that the only smart person in the world is himself. What an ego.
This is gonna be fun to watch. Envelopes at 100 paces. Sigh.
How did they do it – gee Ian – RTFM called the 4AR report for starters.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/church_white/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf
SJT,
One truth about models is that they MUST use data that is reliable, be based on assumptions that are realistic and model at scales (both temporal and spatial) that are consistent with the subject that they are modeling. many recent climate related models fail this simple test on all counts, but especially so in regards to the temporal scale.
Climate is a long term event, modeling changes in arctic ice at the temporal scale that the models do is not consistent with sound modeling technique. Why chose a starting date such as 1961 to run these models from? clearly this is not a sufficiently long time period to model arctic ice change ( plus or minus). I doubt that it is even possible to adequately calibrate the models given the short period of time and the data available.
Sure the models are likely to be wrong, again it all comes down to the quality of the data being used.
As Gavin has noted, we need to watch the margins. As long as the changes at the margins are within the bounds of long term variation our risk management strategy can be guided by both the models (with degrees of imprecision) and historical variation (with lesser degrees of imprecision).
“..global warming was contributing to increased conflict over dwindling resources..”
Oh yeah – how?
Most/all of the conflict over resources is political eg the EU has dithered over “green energy” and are now beholden to the ruskies for real energy. California dithers over power stations so they pay extra for “renewables” Australia dithers over nuclear power and argues the toss over clean coal and issues new light bulbs.
Meantime China and India push on and put up a new power station (coal/nuclear/hydro) almost every other day.
Peter
they are able to reproduce known temperature records to a reasonable degree.
However, as I said, the enhanced greenhouse effect, that is, feedback, is observed and is happening. You can say that we can just ignore it, till we get better models, or go with what we have. The models have already predicted the Arctic results, and their only mistake was that they were too conservative.
You can say it is better to only rely on models we can trust totally, but that isn’t going to happen. We can use them to have a best guess, at least, and we know that the models are able to reasonably reproduce known climate records.
Wouldn’t we expect to see ocean temperatures increasing when the planet is warming?
The fundamental question to me remains, is the planet doing things it has not done before?
Has it warmed up before at rates similar to the last 100 or so years?
Has the temperature been this high before?
These to me are important questions and opinion from my readings is very mixed.
If the science re co2 and its warming effect is beyond reasonable doubt, why do we have to have a ‘consensus’? ( I believe it would be fair to say that in laboratory situations we do know that co2 has a warming effect, but does this translate to the real world with all the other influences that we do and do not understand?)
Resources hey?
Been pondering for about a week on report QLD power stations currently don’t have enough water for running steam turbines since my first job was in the maintenance of condensers and pumps for hot water recovery at the end of the superheated or wet steam line.
Perhaps QLD plants can’t extract the last drop of energy on their return cycle. But I can’t make steel or glass either and depend very much on others for both energy and materials
Today I renewed an acquaintance with a retired glassman who went back to working again in an odd place out in the middle of the country chasing some of our money. Members of his team are locals who have not yet fully understood our customs particularly time keeping, book keeping, house keeping etc after forty thousand years of living simply.
It struck me many our problems in the world today are closely related to modern materials trade, commerce and individual greed. Consumption now drives growth at every level. What ever happened to carrying all our needs from place to place in just two hands?
Take the 4 WD out of the equation and I bet those inlanders with their limited civilization could out live the rest of us by ten to one. Our transition from the Stone Age seems to have happened under relatively stable climate conditions. How do we fare under adverse or unstable climate conditions? The world’s populations of higher living things in general could plummet.
Golly gee Toby – why not look up the just released 4AR and find out. It’s called “READING”.
And you may have missed it but we’ve been discussing real BIG warmings in the past that nuked much marine life !!
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1266
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf
On you real world comment Google these archives for Philipona and discussions on spectral bands closing over time (so if the energy is being absorbed – where’s it going ??). All been discussed here before many times.
Peter – your dismissal is rhetorical – define “reliable” – you need to do a sensitivity test to see if what you’re saying really matters. Why choose 1961 – probably obs – but why do you think that’s too short a time period. Actual argument is what?
Well, well, after a week or so, one looks in to find the same tired old apostles of the new AGW religion, like Luke, SJT, & Gavin still preaching repentence and conversion to all of us dreadful skeptics who inhabit Jennifer’s Blog.
Strangly, conversion seems to be going the other way, as more and more thinking people come to realise what a farce the whole AGW scam is….
But still the Global Warming Bandwaggon, like Stan Frebergs “Elderly Man River”, just keeps ‘Rollin Along’!
Meanwhile, congratulations to David Evans for having the courage to jump off the ‘gravy train’, and try to bring some logical argument into the scientific debate. Oops, I forgot, the science is settled…The debate is over…!!! Is it???
Well tomorrow we are off to Europe for three weeks.(Paying our own way) Do I feel guilty about our airline flight contributing to “Global Warming” ?… No!
A paid announcement from the God Squad and Cherrypickers Union.
And for some fun “Why David Evans is wrong (along with all the other sceptics) ”
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-david-evans-is-wrong-along-with-all.html
“So we are left with the question: why on Earth would anyone believe that CO2 has almost no effect?” .. .. ..
Hi Jennifer,
It seems that the US based media needed a topic they could cling to after the Iraq blunder and found it in Al Gore’s “save the environment” movement. Although Al Gore, to my knowledge, is the first politician who put a real and sincere effort that we need to do something to leave a better world for our children and grand children (politicians usually avoid talking about population increase (unless they encourage its expantion) and try to link societal issues to secondary causes such as lack of education, lack of jobs, spread of disease, etc.) I too think that TIME should be more carefull with GW publications in the future.
Each time I read a thread on GW and its subsequent posts I go back to the population statistics site and start averaging yearly world population increases for the past and future decades. I get the same alarming figure of 200000+ per day everytime! My final conclusion is that the world population WILL be increasing by this figure (on the average)every day for the next decade! I consider this a reality!
With this reality, let us now calculate the number of basic Nukes needed to provide energy for the survival of the new commers (assuming that we already have enough for the present world population of ~6.5 billion):
Assume that a person would need, on the average, about 2000Kcal of food daily (for healthy survival)this would correspond to 2000/860= 2.3kWh/person/day of electrical energy equivalent. At 10% efficiency we need an equivalent of 23 kWh/person/day for processing, transportation etc to make that food available and edible. To compare such need and actual total energy consumption/capita for some nations we have as an example, for the US and Canada ~ 286 kWh/capita/day and for Germany and France 143 kWh/capita/day. So we are on the safe side on the first assumptions.
Now let us consider a basic nuke unit of 1000 MW generating power. Its daily output energy (assuming full efficiency) would be 1000MWx24 = 24000 MWh/day which is 24000000 kWh/day.Dividing this figure by 23 kWh/person we have a basic reactor providing the energy needs of about one million people. So we need to commision one reactor every 5 days, for the next decade, to cope with the incomming population at the basic level. It seems like we are confronted with an impossible situation.No wonder about the China and India effort, Rog.
I agree with Anthony that present day “development” concepts should be reconsidered also in view of the population explosion which appears to be non-stopable.
Jim, I used to believe that the only way out was renewables but the continued insistance of responsibles such as UN not to act upon birth control in an effective way has made me start to think nuclear (I am getting old!). As an electrical engineer I am sure of the safe technology (as for meltdown and direct radiation hazards to employers). The only problem, in my opinion, is with the storage of the waste and possible radiation leakage to cooling waters (environment).
And David Evans volley back is equally fun;
http://evidencedriven.blogspot.com/2007/05/reply-to-james-annan.html
I’d hardly label Evans a sceptic “along with all the other(s)”.
He acknowledges that ” there is a warming effect due to the extra carbon we humans have put into the atmosphere ” right upfront in his reply.
He’s an expert who has doubts about the relative contribution of anthropgenic CO2 and in doing so, acknowledges the contradictions of the ice core evidence.
This necessity to label those who don’t follow the exact script as “sceptics” who are ” all wrong ” , demonstrates a real insecurity IMO.
At least Evans has put his money where his mouth is – though it’ll take a while for him to collect or pay.
Toby
the heat has to go somewhere, there’s no magic little box somewhere on the planet it can sneak out of. Either it is being absorbed into the planet, or it’s going out into space.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html
Der Spiegel, May 07, 2007
GLOBAL WARMING – Not the End of the World as We Know It
By Olaf Stampf
“…some environmentalists doubt that the large-scale extinction of animals and plants some have predicted will in fact come about. “A warmer climate helps promote species diversity,” says Munich zoologist Josef Reichholf.”
“For example, countries like Canada and Russia can look forward to better harvests and a blossoming tourism industry, and the only distress the Scandinavians will face is the guilty conscience that could come with benefiting from global warming.”
“Perhaps palm trees will be growing on the island of Helgoland in the North Sea soon, and German citizens will be saving billions in heating costs — which in turn would lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions.”
“The medical benefits of higher average temperatures have also been ignored. According to Richard Tol, an environmental economist, “warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu.””
“According to an American study published last week, the Arctic could be melting even faster than previously assumed. But because the Arctic sea ice already floats in the water, its melting will have virtually no effect on sea levels.”
“One member of the levelheaded camp is Hans von Storch, 57, a prominent climate researcher who is director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht in northern Germany. “We have to take away people’s fear of climate change,” Storch told DER SPIEGEL in a recent interview. “Unfortunately many scientists see themselves too much as priests whose job it is to preach moralistic sermons to people.””
Poor Luke gets very uptight when someone actually checks the numbers we are being fed because there is almost always some serious inconsistency. And when all else fails he accuses me of inflated ego for even daring to question the climate lords.
The numbers from Sabine above are no exception. He said,
“For the period 1961 to 2003, the average contribution of thermal expansion to sea level
rise was 0.4 ± 0.1 mm yr–1. As reported in the TAR, it is likely that the sum of all known contributions for this period is smaller than the observed sea level rise, and therefore it is not possible to satisfactorily account for the processes causing sea level rise. However, for the period 1993 to 2003, for which the observing system is much better, the contributions from thermal expansion (1.6 ± 0.5 mm yr–1)and loss of mass from glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland
and Antarctic Ice Sheets together give 2.8 ± 0.7 mm yr–1.”
But these numbers don’t stack up. First up we have a 42 year mean rise of 0.4mm/year for a total rise of 16.8mm but then he is claiming 1.6mm/year for the last decade in that sequence. So when we deduct the 16mm of rise attributed to 1993-2003 from the total of 16.8mm from 1961-2003 we are left with only 0.8mm to average over the remaining 32 years for an annual change of 0.025mm.
Even if we use his error margins of 1.6mm +-0.5mm and use 1.1mm for 1993-2003, we still have a decadal rise of 11mm which still leaves only 5.8mm to average over the previous 32 years. This would amount to an annual rise of only 0.18mm.
The problem with this is that this is totally inconsistent with recorded temperature changes and totally inconsistent with the basic physics of heat transfer.
The change from 0.18mm to 1.1mm is 600%. The change from 0.025mm to 1.6mm, the claimed mid-range estimate, is 6400%. Both changes are preposterous. Neither estimates have any relationship to the supply of solar heat, the recorded temperature changes over that period, nor any relationship to the change in CO2 levels.
There is no need to graph these elements to understand that the theoretical inputs are all gradual increments while Sabine’s claimed high certainty estimated outputs are trending off the planet.
And given that the 1961-2003 mean sea level rise of 0.4mm/year is so consistent with both the theoretical thermal expansion coefficient for a 0.10C increase in mean temperature of the thermocline, and the observed long term records, one must conclude that the 1993-2003 estimate is a blatant exaggeration.
No what I get fed up with Ian is you talking crap without even a basic check of the existing state of play to see what the practitioners in the field are saying. Not what you think they MIGHT be saying. It’s called “not doing your literature review”.
So we have people speculating about stuff that’s in the 4AR report – so RTFM !!!
Church and the 4AR references are the most recent discussions on sea level rise.
Schiller – crap as always – ” “We have to take away people’s fear of climate change,” Storch told DER SPIEGEL in a recent interview. “Unfortunately many scientists see themselves too much as priests whose job it is to preach moralistic sermons to people.””
NO NO NO – the job of scienists is to say it like it is on an issue like this – not win popularity contests. ESPECIALLY with people like you. No pandering to the right or the left or green for that matter!
It’s now seen fashionable to have a moderate view. That’s as illogical as having an alarmist view. The only view is the view that the science is telling you, with uncertainties noted.
A functioning democratic system’s job is to decide what to do about the information. Either implemenent an adaptive policy or ignore it. But don’t confuse the science effort with your lack of enthusiasm for the policy or economic response. Otherwise you are going to select a scientific culture of “yes men and yes women” that will never ask the hard questions that have seen the technological progression of humanity.
In your instance the tractor would never have been invented – you would have a titanium coated digging stick with a GPS unit on it. But no wheels nor engines.
Thanks for that thought Schiller, some people may benefit, while Australia is screwed. Do you think they would mind if 20 million Australians asked for refugee status?
SJT,
I’ve heard you Aussies are a hardy, durable and imaginative lot. I doubt all of you would be such pansies that you’d all go begging. You’d innovate your way out of the proposed calamities
Except for you personally, that is. Bear in mind that countries don’t like anti-technology beggars as immigrants.
Get a grip. 20 million Australian refugees?! And you wonder why so many of us think its a ‘religion’!
Another sleazy sidestep Phluke, You know damned well this part I refer to has been taken from TAR to 4AR. And to top it all off it was a reference provided by YOU! But, just as your pathetic paleoclimate beat up, once the fundamental faults are pointed out you try to change the story, bend the facts and weasel out. But no matter how you try to avoid it, the numbers DO NOT ADD UP.
Either get us some numbers that do add up or get off the blog. You are not just misleading the public here you are holding us all in contempt of our right to know the truth.
Of course not – that’s why clean green technology is the most patriotic pro-capitalist pro-choice thing you can do. Think we need to get a posse and hog-tie commies like Schillsbo and run him out of town (rhetorically of course). I mean I don’t want some Hitleresque African holocaust fabricating anti free market good ol’ boy telling me I can’t enjoy a free-range organic tofu burger should I have the presence of mind to enjoy one. And hold the pickle and the DDT with that.
What tosh Ian – make a clear case with what you’re referencing from the latest work from Church and the 4AR instead of screaming gibberish. “Get us some numbers or get off” – what a Hitler like little fascist you are – do you think you’re somebody in control or importance. The old ego inflation meter is climbing again. (sound of bicycle pump in the background).
(“the public!” – ROTFL – mate this a partisan blog not a national broadcaster – don’t get too up yourself).
‘Zimbabwe to head UN environment body’
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21717611-5005961,00.html
And we are supposed to trust the UN’s ‘opinions’ and analysis!!?
Toby
you don’t have to trust the UN, the IPCC is a joint effort between the UN, as a suitable organiser of a global body, and the climatologists organisation, which did not have the capacity to host such a large task.
The science is not affected either way, although countries like the USA and China do insist on trying to modify the language used in reports.
What tosh, indeed, Luke. Do you mean you didn’t supply the reference with the numbers I examined? It is in your post above, bozo. And now I’m a fascist for finding basic errors and guilty of egotism?
No Luke, despite all your abuse, I was trained in Business and Accounting, the one profession that is tasked with ensuring the integrity of the numbers provided by people who want to use other people’s money. I then spent 15 years at the top (Qld Association VP) of the industry that is tasked with ensuring the veracity of the claims people make about themselves in job applications. As an executive recruiter, my clients were blue chip, industry leaders and I was paid very well for doing my job very well.
The Mr Church’s of this world produce documents on which decisions to provide other people’s money are based. And that makes it very much my business, by right and by obligation.
So run along now, punkey boy, and let me know when your net worth is greater than your credit card limit.
Come in spinner. What a gigantic ego as demonstrated. No Ian – you’re just an backwoods activist who does no background research and is good at destabilising debates with sophistry for political purposes. So someone who spent his life tax dodging his way to the top as a flash harry knife merchant (= a true spiv) is now proud to disparage those involved in public service. You’re not in political power so take a running jump Adolf.
I mean listen to yourself “my business, my right, and by obligation”. Who the hell do you think you are?
Luke,
Listen to yourself. “destabilising debates with sophistry for political purposes.” If it’s stable, it’s no debate. If the facts are settled, all that’s left is politics.
Either you’re unfamiliar with the basic notions of debating, or you’re making a back-door claim that Ian’s error is to deny that what you say is true or unbiased.
I’ll add to this, as an aside, that the true mark of desperation in any debate is invoking Adolf or comparing an opponent to him. There are times when this is legitimate, such as comparing Adolf to Pol Pot, Mao, and Greenpeace.
However, tossing the name about like so much mud merely invites a saying of Confucius: “He who slings mud loses ground.”
Schiller
you’re looking to blow up the irony meter, I’d be careful.
Schiller you of all people can comment or make any claim to standards of debate. You’ve long ago departed any level of debating decency or standards. So don’t bung it on mate. I think it’s entirely legitimate to compare someone like yourself by your own words to be totalitarian and fascist in philosophy as indicated by your own comments and outlook.
Hanging organic food producers – come on – you’re out of control !
Clean and green is partiotic, pro-humanity, pro-capitalist and pro-choice – sound like if you’re in the way you’re a commie.
So Schiller are you and have you ever been a member of the communist party. Do you know anyone who is. Have you ever talked to anyone who is? Do you belong to any minority groups ? Do you espouse totalitarian values?
Luke, SJT, Travis,
What I most enjoy about you guys is how you make long-winded arguments that are content-free. You display to the world a disregard for facts (except those cherry-picked), a penchant for hurling invective, an addiction to pasting labels, and an utter lack of civility.
Every time we hear the phrase, “civil society,” some may be inclined to hark back to your discourse and reach a conclusion about what it represents.
And everyone who reads the newspapers and has a functional memory will remember Seattle, Waterloo (Canada), Rome, Prague, Davos, (twice) and Paris (twice). Several Billions in damage during the March of Unreason.
Being cogent might make some friends, but after all that, those whose positions you espouse will have to work really hard to make even a marginally positive reputation.
Schiller – amazing in its breathtaking hypocrisy – you get plenty of content from me. We continually get zero from you.
You see Schillsbo what you right wingers think is that you can hand out insults with impunity and make totally unsubstantiated propoganda without being pulled up on it. And any touch up and you’ll accuse us as rioting anarchists ! But who is “us” anyway. Luke, SJT and Travis are just a bunch of guys – individuals – it’s not like where some 4th column movement hell-bent on destruction of democracy and the world as we know it.
Like most totalitarians you’re not used to being spoken back to. You think you’re born to rule. Think again – be more polite and see if you get a change in reponse.
We’re just simple creatures responding to stimuli. Change the tempo of the debate and you’ll notice we will adapt.
Luke,
I completely agree with your characterization of yourselves as “simple creatures responding to stimuli.”
If you want to call me a right-winger, well, let’s let that moniker stick for the sake of provisionally saving your argument.
How many right-wingers are torching cars and buildings, and hurling bags of urine at those trying to preserve a semblance of civilization?
No, it’s the lefties doing that–they’re so self-absorbed in the notion of personal sanctity in accordance with their eco- or whatever- religiosity that they feel justified in assaulting anyone who disagrees.
You don’t want the tempo of the debate to change, believe me. If the right-wingers riot, you’ll see vastly different things torched and destroyed.
But for now, the right-wingers can at least claim they they are more “civil” than the alternative.
P.S. When you say, “We continually get zero from you,” what “we” are you referring to? I sense a curious solidarity in spite of your claim of being “individuals.”
Nazi groups typical of the far right wreaking havoc – quite a few actually.
And the right normally uses the military and police to add official approval for state sanctioned violence and you guys are good at it.
Frankly I don’t I don’t know any lefties or greenies that have torched car or buildings. Or any that are hell bent on destroying civilisation. They would however like a better society something that you regularly oppose.
That you oppose Schiller as being anti-choice, anti-market and anti-capitalist.
Schiller
instead of continuing to talk at cross purposes, could you perhaps say where the lack of content is? Luke has kindly looked up numerous scientific papers, only to have abuse hurled at him. Could you maybe refer to one of those posts and reply with content instead of abuse?
SJT you say a few posts above “you don’t have to trust the UN, the IPCC is a joint effort between the UN, as a suitable organiser of a global body, and the climatologists organisation, which did not have the capacity to host such a large task.
The science is not affected either way, although countries like the USA and China do insist on trying to modify the language used in reports.
This is in reference to my disbelief that the UN could appoint Zimbabwe to head the UN environment body.
You do not seriously doubt that that the IPCC is political in nature surely? Agreed there are many scientists and economists etc that have input, but the IP (inter governmental) kinda gives away its political nature. You say they have to modify their language to suit the agenda’s of China and USA. This is no doubt true, but surely you are not suggesting that others do not also demand modifications?
How unbiased are the people selected to have input? Are ‘sceptics’ given enough/ any hearing? I recall reading and hearing from many people who claim the process is biased. A reviewer of CH19 of 4TAR from the university of Tasmania has just been talking on ‘counter point’ who pointed out many flaws in the IPCC process….not the least of which is the desire of scientists to out do each other and who are then able to act as reviewers of their own work! Also if the vast majority of people used by the IPCC are of the same opinion and bias……..how unbiased is their ‘review’.
The IPCC tells us the debate is over and the science is decided. Why then are their scientists who disagree on many different fronts ( ie degree of human influence, impacts, projections, natural causes, consequences, future direction etc). If the proxy data being used is correct and the models being used are correct then maybe this is the case. But it seems to me abundantly clear that there is a need to be sceptical about models and their outputs, and questions about proxy data and the reliance on the same data sets being used.
back to my comment on the UN, if they are willing to appoint Zimbabwe to govern ‘anything’, how can we trust who they get to control the IPCC??!
Toby – the UN has many failings and in many cases has demonstrated ineptitude and an inability to run a chook raffle – a bloated bureaucracy perhaps – paralysed with vetoes – yep see Darfur. (I wonder why Schiller never mentions Darfur or Zimbabwe given his African health concerns – but I digress.. ..)
But in this case it’s a collection of eminent scientists, yes “minded” by policy types, but not simply diplomats.
If you look at the Australian names I suggest it’s VERY insulting to our representatives some of whom I know to suggest that they didn’t do their very best. Are you suggesting that they’re
“on the take”?
And inevitably like in any human endeavour you’ll has some mistakes and some disenchanted with the process, jealousy etc. We’re all human.
But what else do you have to be informed Toby – do we let everyone have a go on some perception of “fairness” or “equal” time for any old argument – or do we want the world’s eminent scientists in the area – like Dr John Church – to give us their considered opinion.
Frankly I can’t think of anything much better.
Would you advocate a world without a UN? No organised discourse between nations. Mob rule and ah hoc alliances. No international treaties. No auspices.
So somone had a little sooky whinge on counterpoint – boo hoo – let’s hear something like page 427 – the estimate on blah blah should be.
The other issues is that there really are very few people up to reviewing and working at the level required. Indeed most of the contrarians are not practicing climate modellers and frankly wouldn’t know !
So all this bleating about “Wow – I have found a scientist who disagrees” as some appeal to authority is so very tedious and really useless as serious evidence. Old geologists should retire.
Seems to be you’re advocating science anarchy. Saying it’s all hopeless and flawed. Then departing the stage .. .. Perhaps this is a model for medical practice ? Let’s have medical anarchy. Anyone with an opinion can have a hack.
Are the sceptics given enough hearing you ask? ANSWER- YES – far to much for the low quality drivel that is served up.
So to quote James Annan
“Almost all models, using a wide range of physical parameterisations, suggest a significant positive amplification, giving the typical range of 2-4.5C for sensitivity. All analyses of observational evidence also point towards a value of close to 3C (exactly how close is still subject to some debate).
So we are left with the question: why on Earth would anyone believe that CO2 has almost no effect?”
Luke,
Most of the IPCC concensus scientists are not climate scientists, so your point above re: contrarians is irellevent. And science is anarchic in nature. How else does the system work but to allow those who think differently to pursue their research and to “discover”, if you like, alternate truths. And YES we have had medical anarchy, over and over again the status quo has been challenged and proven to be wanting. Whilst I cannot remember the names, the medical researchers who challenged the status quo on the cause of stomach ulcers is a recent case that supports this view.
As for CO2 having little or no effect, I doubt that anyone accepts that proposition. However, it is given far to much prominence given the available data and that is why people continue to question the science.
Do other scientists, who question the science, have to be climate specialists? Of course NOT. Many of the questions concerning the science are about the data, the methods, and the assumptions. These are not trivial matters and should be questioned given the so called “solutions” that are being called for by environmental advocacy groups pushing their own politiacl agenda’s.
Lastly, of course the models suggest a positive amplification, the “consensus” approach to climate science is almosta self fulfilling prophesy, there are no independent data sets to underpin the models ( every one uses pretty much the same data) and the assumptions that underpin the models do not stray beyond what could be called the IPCC norm.
Good grief, sit back and critically examine the science! It is still in its infancy and over the next decades we will learn so much more. I cannot believe that either you are so gullible as to accept the end is nigh hypothesis, or that you are so accepting of the “science” without questioning the quality of the data. Jesus man! the sensitivity is within the range of the historical variation!
Peter
the current trajectory is cause for concern, you may say it is within historical variation, but the rate of acceleration sees it blasting off, not just gradually heading for a soon to be reached peak.
“the sensitivity is within the range of the historical variation” – Peter that’s a total abdication of any thinking processes. More throwing hands in the air and caterwailing instead of logical evaluation. Couldn’t disagree with you more. You have a massive case of interwoven evidence laid in the full WG1 report – like James Annan I am agog that you could read that and not think there was a substantive case.
Science is far from anarchic and we all don’t to have a go. The ulcer science was anti-establishment sure – but backed up with good corroborating evidence. And it didn’t come from a retired geologist.
If we’re talking the WG1 report most are climate scientists.
Luke, SJT et al, your attempt at shifting the focus away from the specific numbers and onto broad philosophical positions will be seen through by most readers as your usual cop-out when cornered.
So how is it that we can have a 42 year mean thermal sea level rise of 0.4mm with the last decade of that sequence having a mean of 1.6mm?
42 x 0.4mm = 16.8mm
10 x 1.6mm = 16.0mm
0.8mm/32 years = 0.025mm
So what momentous climatic event took place in 1993 to change the rate of thermal sea level rise from 0.025mm/year to 1.6mm/year?
More to the point, what major, trend changing, temperature rise took place in 1993 that could have caused an immediate change in the heat balance of the upper 250 million cubic Km of ocean within a single year?
Take a look at the temperature graph again and tell us what it was in 1993 that changed the rate of thermal heat transfer. http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/ipcc1.gif
Could it be the case that the IPCC needed a much higher base number on which to base their fraudulent extrapolations (sorry, projections)on? So they just made one up?
Remember folks, we are talking about a planetary climatic mean here. Since when, failing asteroid strike, does a sequence of planetary means take a sudden leap into the stratosphere?
What you are seeing from Luke is the anger of the pickpocket who has just been collared.
SJT,
The current trajectory as modelled by Mann et al is the cause of much of the debate. This is not settled science, it is evolving constantly and for many it is not conclusive.
Luke,
What nonsense you put forward. It is precisely because it is within the range of natural variation that many observers are critically thinking about the models, the data, the underpinning assunptions and asking the questions that they do.
M&M may not be climate scientists but they do understand data and their questions have yet to adequately responded to.
Yes the ulcer science was anti-establishment, any counter viewpoint usually is, so what is your point that you were attempting to make? Their good corroborating evidence was also and importantly not “modelled” evidence but good old fashioned empirical evidence. The kind that is irrefutable, that is why the establishment finally accepted their hypothesis, it was proven!
Luke I am NOT suggesting the scientists are on ‘the take’. But they appear to be of the same mind set. Maybe this is because the science is certain. BUT is it? Isnt it a good idea to have a few people playing devils advocate to ensure bias is easier to pick up? Most of us ‘see’ what we want/ expect to see. We all have biases, its important to recognise this, it does not make people dishonest or mean we should question the scientists integrity. Infact I am sure most / all operate from a deep desire to help mankind.
The scientist I heard today on counter point is one of just many I have heard speak or read. You make it sound like he is a one off! By the way he does not disagree with much/ most of the 4TAR by the sounds of his comments, although the questions he was asked were not directed at his belief in AGW (Ainslie somebody from Uni of Tassie)
Is it true that much of the science is based on one or two data sets? (predominantly the vostok ice core I have read this in numerous places)
Is it reasonable to be sceptical of proxy data?
Is an increase of 0.7/.8 c really that much? after all isn t it agreed that temp fell by 0.4c from 1940-1975?
It does appear the majority of climate scientists feel GW is being caused by humans ( and as I think Annan has said we should defer to the ‘authority’), but since we know climate always changes isnt it important to keep looking/ challenging the status quo to see if the hypothesis is wrong.
Its quite clear many do not challenge the alarming predictions coming out of scientists and the media’s mouths ( its also clear that the majority of ‘real’ scientists…as opposed to teh flannery’s and gore’s!…tend to be more conservative in their predictions). I don t think a day goes by on the ABC between 7.30 and 8 am where global warming is not mentioned. In fact its a stand up joke with my 12 year old daughter that what ever the topic AGW will be attached in some way.
I enjoy seeing the ‘battles’ between Luke and Ian and reckon from ‘my bias’ you are running neck and neck….but hehe thats my bias.
Peter to quote someone recently – if you’re happy to stick with Skoda thinking when the world has upgraded to BMW thinking that’s fine. I can see you’re happy to wander around going isn’t nature grand and mysterious. We know nothing – apart from Ian of course who knows everything. Everything that proves we know nothing.
Mott – SJT and I haven’t earned turned up for work on sea level rise yet – wasn’t in our AWA – we’re just letting you bleat on embarrassing yourself. Which we can always count on as you never check your facts. It’s called egocentric vision distortion.
Peter
that steep part of the hockey stick is measured values, not proxy data.
Flannery is a real scientist, Gore is just using information collected by scientists.
Toby
“Is an increase of 0.7/.8 c really that much? after all isn t it agreed that temp fell by 0.4c from 1940-1975?”
The point is that it’s going to keep rising. Already, a very small rise seems to have had big consequences for Australia.
Toby – sigh – he’s an economist and a known contrarian in my book. And Duffy was cackling like a little kid as he knew the answer to each loaded question as he asked it. He’d done his homework. The comment on chaos was predictable. The climate may be chaotic but it is bounded – strangely winter does follow summer. It’s an old ruse argument. Basically Counterpoint is about as partisan as you can get. It will be a red-letter day when Duffy interviews a serious climatologist with some decent airtime.
“On helping mankind” – nah – these guys and gals are specialists and have taken years to get on top of the subject – they simply pride themselves in doing a good job. It’s about quality in information.
In terms of media – I know it’s all so tedious and long winded – but instead of going by the media or Al Gore – why not read the real stuff – not was is purported to be “the real stuff”.
I tell you what is bloody great though and of high quality – the ongoing sideswipes, crass vernacular, and sarcastic invective from Ian. Where does he get them? The guys at work are clipping it for a book. They’re going to call it “Because I want to do you slowly”.
Luke I have read ‘much of the real stuff’….but as I have said before, many of the actual papers are difficult for me to really understand, let alone try to pick holes in. I have to rely on others to do that.. I have for instance read much of what the IPCC has written , and realclimate etc……you frequently seem to accuse me of not reading! (trust me I do….too much), I then look to see if others are questioning what has been written.
BUT given that I know climate changes and a 0.8C increase is not that much,and that it has been this hot before,it seems reasonable to keep trying to read and find out if teh hypothesis is wrong.
I also believe it is human nature to be pessimistic…..mankind has always had/ seemed to need a catastrophe on the horizon ( often too control us! is this another example?!). This one may be real, the others have not been.
Are you open minded, or biased to only finding fault with dissenting opinions to the AGW theory?
Once again Toby, 0.8C is just the start.
So we now have days of Ian frothing at the mouth with venomous insults at IPCC researchers; and all many of impuned motives; without any basic checking of the background behind their numbers. But as we know Ian is neither a scholar nor a gentleman.
From Chapter 9 on WG1. Attribution.
“Simulations including natural as well as anthropogenic
forcings (the ‘ALL’ models in Table 9.2) generally have smaller
ocean heat uptake during the period 1961 to 2003 than those
without volcanic forcing, since several large volcanic eruptions
cooled the climate during this period (Gleckler et al., 2006).
This leads to a better agreement of those simulations with thermal expansion estimates based on observed ocean warming
(Section 5.5.3) than for the complete set of model simulations
(‘ALL/ANT’ in Table 9.2). For 1993 to 2003, the models that
include natural forcings agree well with observations. Although
this result is somewhat uncertain because the simulations end
at various dates from 1999 onwards, it accords with results
obtained by Church et al. (2005) using the PCM and Gregory et
al. (2006) using HadCM3, which suggest that 0.5 mm yr–1 of the
trend in the last decade may result from warming as a recovery
from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption of 1991. Comparison of the
results for 1961 to 2003 and 1993 to 2003 shows that volcanoes
influence the ocean differently over shorter and longer periods.
The rapid expansion of 1993 to 2003 was caused, in part, by
rapid warming of the upper ocean following the cooling due to
the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, whereas the multi-decadal response
is affected by the much longer persistence in the deep ocean of
cool anomalies caused by volcanic eruptions (Delworth et al.,
2005; Gleckler et al., 2006; Gregory et al., 2006).
AND
Overall, it is very likely that the response to anthropogenic
forcing contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of
the 20th century. Models including anthropogenic and natural
forcing simulate the observed thermal expansion since 1961
reasonably well. Anthropogenic forcing dominates the surface
temperature change simulated by models, and has likely
contributed to the observed warming of the upper ocean and
widespread glacier retreat. It is very unlikely that the warming
during the past half century is due only to known natural causes.
Lack of studies quantifying the contribution of anthropogenic
forcing to ocean heat content increase and glacier melting,
and the fact that the observational budget is not closed,
make it difficult to estimate the anthropogenic contribution.
Nevertheless, an expert assessment based on modelling and
ocean heat content studies suggests that anthropogenic forcing
has likely contributed at least one-quarter to one-half of the sea
level rise during the second half of the 20th century (see also
Woodworth et al., 2004).”
Gee so it’s a bit more complicated than Mottsian algebra would suggest and the IPCC are a bit more circumspect than Ian suggests.
THINK before you RANT !
Lack of studies quantifying the contribution of anthropogenic
forcing to ocean heat content increase and glacier melting,
and the fact that the observational budget is not closed,
make it difficult to estimate the anthropogenic contribution.
Thanks Luke
Schiller – don’t be tiresome and read rest. It’s really so boringly tedious now that you guys like to play word games and cherrypick. Yawn. If you had read the full report you’d know what some of the key hunches are why the budget is not closed. But that requires an ability to read as opposed to RANT.
In any case you’re the ones going on about sea level rise and gloom and doom.
Luke,
Your mistake is that in your haste, you accidentally quoted an AGW skeptic.
Now you’ll have to live with the reputation of quoting AGW skeptics. I will sit back and watch the fun.
Which particular skeptic was that Schiller? You know what you’re on about.
Well, goodness, Luke,
I would have thought that you would have serendipitously guessed it was the AGW skeptic you quoted, who said,
“Lack of studies … make it difficult to estimate the anthropogenic contribution.”
Surely you can solve this remarkable mystery. Maybe you could Google this page and find the answer!
Readers can look back over the above posts and observe for themselves that the only ranting is from Luke and most of the content of his ranting is his continuous assertion that I have been ranting. It is a novel, albeit pathetic, approach to resort to name calling in an attempt to discourage someone from examining the hard data closely.
And if Luke did not have a retention deficit he would have realised that the second para of his above quote dealt with distinguishing between anthropogenic forcing and non-anthropogenic forcing. It had nothing to do with the rate of heat transfer to oceans and the resulting rate of thermal expansion.
Luke was soooo keen to include any sort of quote to support his case that he forgot that he, and most on this blog, have already clearly established that volcanic activity delivers a statistically insignificant volume of CO2 compared to the natural fluxes and annual trends.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html This site suggest that anthropogenic CO2, alone, is 150 times greater than volcanic CO2.
And once again, he is unable to distinguish between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact. To him, 1.6mm of SL rise plus three lines of vague, generalised verbage equals truth. And in this case, all the vague and generalised verbage relates to simulations, not fact.
And if Church et al are running climate muddles that are so simplistic as to produce an immediate response in the thermal balance of the upper 255 million Km3 of ocean volume, then the time is long overdue for a performance review.
If the above quote is correct then Church is claiming that it took only 2 years (from 1993 to 1995) for a 0.2C warming to feed through into a 0.5mm annual sea level rise attributed to Mt Pinatubo. The problem is that the theoretical maximum rise, if all of the temperature rise was attributed to Pinatubo, and if none of the heat tranfer was converted to oceanic movement, wave motion etc, was 0.4mm.
And in that case, almost all of the temperature rise since 1993 would be due to Pinatubo because the 11 year mean temperature has leveled off at the 1995 level.
So where did the anthropogenic warmed water sneak off to while this was happening. Church cannot have it both ways. The influence of a single years additional heat is only in proportion to the sum of past heat increments and the rate of circulation.
As has already been stated, the official numbers do not stack up.
As I suspected Schiller – it wasn’t an indivdual – it was the consensus report as approved by the authors. So you can now have the whole IPCC chapter as skeptics. I think you need to believe that and I’m happy for you to. Nighty night.
I thought the following quote should give the protagonists something to think about. ‘The IPCC was created by conservatives to forestall ‘alarmist’ declarations’ of scientists. …..the power of ratiuonal argument overcame all obstacles’. New Scientist p 20 14/4/07. What is more alarming is Jens declaration to TIME (above) that she is not a believer in global warming. It exists no matter what Jen believes.
Ian – are you a total goober !!! a climatic ningus nongus.
Numb nuts, the second para explicitly acknowledges uncertainties and that the budget longer scale is not closed.
The 1993-2003 science stacks up pretty well if you read it. Better technology They are saying that there are complicating decadal factors from 1963 to 2003 which you have too small a cranial cavity to comprehend.
You have no idea how the volcanism is affecting sea level. Who’s talking CO2?
And I haven’t even started on the spatial issues yet.
Ian – you’re the one bleating about sea level. And Schiller thinks he’s on a winner.I’m not raising it an an issue. Never have. Water availability is my big AGW issue.
The IPCC have given you their story warts and all. They’ve told you what computes and what’s awry.
So what the fudge is your problem.
In any case the new numbers don’t produce any catatrophic inundation soon.
So don’t impune the meaning of life from the above quote which was simply to illustrate two points – (a) decadal effects and complexity. (b) uncertainties. Unknowns with the global freshwater cycle are part of the uncertainties.
Read the frigging two relevant chapters in the 4AR and Church’s paper and then come out swinging. Debating with a lazy klutz who can’t be even bothered to do his lit review has now finished. I’m frankly sick of doing your homework for you.
And BTW the above quote were not from Church alone – your lack of appreciation who the authors even are illustrates my point.
Hmmn, Luke exits stage left, covered in his own spittle, having dumped all his generalities and not put forward a single specific.
His brain functions like a sphincter muscle. It’s natural position is closed tight, it is designed solely for output with minimal accommodation for input, and even then, it is associated with pain, and all it ever produces is [fill in the blank].
Ian
noted several specifics from Luke. Would you like me to point them out to you?
What might volcanoes do?
Nature 439, 675 (9 February 2006) | doi:10.1038/439675a; Published online 8 February 2006
Volcanoes and climate: Krakatoa’s signature persists in the ocean
P. J. Gleckler1, T. M. L. Wigley2, B. D. Santer1, J. M. Gregory3,4, K. AchutaRao1 and K. E. Taylor1
——————————————————————————–
This huge eruption slowed sea-level rise and ocean warming well into the following century.
We have analysed a suite of 12 state-of-the-art climate models and show that ocean warming and sea-level rise in the twentieth century were substantially reduced by the colossal eruption in 1883 of the volcano Krakatoa in the Sunda strait, Indonesia. Volcanically induced cooling of the ocean surface penetrated into deeper layers, where it persisted for decades after the event. This remarkable effect on oceanic thermal structure is longer lasting than has previously been suspected1 and is sufficient to offset a large fraction of ocean warming and sea-level rise caused by anthropogenic influences.
and also ……
“An oceanic response to the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, which was comparable to Krakatoa in terms of its radiative forcing, has been identified in satellite altimetry data1. The simulated heat-content recovery after Pinatubo seems to occur much more rapidly than for Krakatoa (Fig. 1a). This disparity arises because the Pinatubo response is superimposed on a non-stationary background of large and increasing greenhouse-gas forcing. The heat-content effects of Pinatubo and other eruptions in the late twentieth century are offset by the observed warming of the upper ocean, which is primarily due to anthropogenic influences6.”
is the signal complex – yup ! but can we model it – yep !
Science 8 July 2005:
Vol. 309. no. 5732, pp. 284 – 287
DOI: 10.1126/science.1112418
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports
Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World’s Oceans
Tim P. Barnett,1* David W. Pierce,1 Krishna M. AchutaRao,2 Peter J. Gleckler,2 Benjamin D. Santer,2 Jonathan M. Gregory,3 Warren M. Washington4
A warming signal has penetrated into the world’s oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. Changes in advection combine with surface forcing to give the overall warming pattern. The implications of this study suggest that society needs to seriously consider model predictions of future climate change.
1 Climate Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 0224, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
2 Program for Climate Model Diagnoses and Intercomparison/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Post Office Box 808, Livermore, CA 94550, USA.
3 UK Met Office Hadley Centre and University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UK.
4 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Post Office Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, USA.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: tbarnett@ucsd.edu
********************
Is there more on volcanoes – yup –
Nature 438, 74-77 (3 November 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04237
Significant decadal-scale impact of volcanic eruptions on sea level and ocean heat content
John A. Church1,2, Neil J. White1,2 and Julie M. Arblaster3,4
Ocean thermal expansion contributes significantly to sea-level variability and rise1. However, observed decadal variability in ocean heat content2, 3 and sea level4 has not been reproduced well in climate models5. Aerosols injected into the stratosphere during volcanic eruptions scatter incoming solar radiation, and cause a rapid cooling of the atmosphere6, 7 and a reduction in rainfall6, 8, 9, as well as other changes in the climate system7. Here we use observations of ocean heat content2, 3 and a set of climate simulations to show that large volcanic eruptions result in rapid reductions in ocean heat content and global mean sea level. For the Mt Pinatubo eruption, we estimate a reduction in ocean heat content of about 3 1022 J and a global sea-level fall of about 5 mm. Over the three years following such an eruption, we estimate a decrease in evaporation of up to 0.1 mm d-1, comparable to observed changes in mean land precipitation6, 8, 9. The recovery of sea level following the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991 explains about half of the difference between the long-term rate of sea-level rise4 of 1.8 mm yr-1 (for 1950–2000), and the higher rate estimated for the more recent period where satellite altimeter data are available (1993–2000)4, 10.
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, GPO Box 1538,
Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80307-3000, USA
Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia
Correspondence to: John A. Church1,2 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.A.C. (Email: John.Church@csiro.au).
I predict total silence from Schiller, Ian et al, till the next response to abuse, at which Luke will be castigated for a lack of content.
Ian engaging in rational debate:
and in NSW mode
So he hits the copy the block button and hopes it passes for informed input. But he still doesn’t get it. The Krakatoa and pinatubo posts are conclusions with no specific checkable data. They are just words in space with no specific reference points.
And they simply highlight what I have been saying all along, that long term past influences are still impacting on the extent of warming in the present.
The quote from Church refers to 1950 to 2000 sea level rise which includes an extra 13 years at the start of the set in which global temperature was a full 0.45C cooler than the present. The cooler part of the set lasts 30 years from 1950 to 1980 and this will obviously have an enduring, adverse, impact on the rate of thermal SL rise. It will not just be a simple surface temperature change that can be “recovered” in the way Church describes the change after Pinatubo. That 3 decade of cool temperature will also have fed into 30/800ths (3.75%) of deep ocean circulation which will remain until completion of the cycle.
This may seem like an insignificant number until one recalls that the upper 700m of ocean volume is only 18.75% of total ocean volume. So the enduring remnant footprint of the 1950-1980 cool period is equivalent to 1/5th of the volume of the upper thermocline that continues to retard the potential for thermal expansion of the oceans as a whole.
In fact, it is probably more accurate to describe 1950-80 as not so much a cooling but, rather, a plateau on the previous warming from 1910 to 1950.
Interestingly, Sabine above, refers to 1963 to 2003 which must obviously include a higher rate of SL rise because of the higher temperatures present. Yet, Church appears to be claiming a higher long term rate of SL rise than Sabine.
I can’t comment much more on the Church reference because, at this stage, all we have been given are the generalities not the calculations.
But it is timely to remind ourselves how we actually got into this particular thread. It was a response to a claim by either SJT or Luke that the IPCC numbers are all overly conservative and that the “real science” indicated an increasing trend in all indicators.
I think even Luke would now concede that the IPCC numbers on sea level rise, especially the thermal expansion portion, are not understated at all. Indeed, the more complete the picture becomes, the less scary the rising sea level scarenario becomes.
In any other context it would be entirely appropriate to commend the work of Church et al for the improvements they have achieved. But we are stuck in a political context where we still have Al Gore, the ABC, and other goons flogging mass innundation BS. And that requires a level of vigorous response that some would obviously not deserve. I think it is called collateral damage.
Ian – do you think I’ve simply selected input for blog clogging. The whirlwind through the junk yard builds 747 philosophy. I’m hoping that you’re smart enough to join some dots with some very pertinent selective exacavations from the literature – hurt my head digging it up !
(1) the sea level rise stuff is complicated – so some volcano stuff to illustrate SOME decadal influences. It ain’t all that simple if you’re using a one dimensional envelope.
(2) yes there are uncertainties which are actually acknowledged and discussed
(3) Tim Barnett has done a fair job of modelling the sea level rise to depth and reasonably demonstrates despite difficulties with the data a discernable anthropogenic influence. i.e solar, inherent variability and volcanoes don’t explain it all – you need global warming
(4) The volcano stuff wasn’t about CO2 was it eh?
Despite all this you’ve been putting the boot into the IPCC scientists really unfairly and without doing your homework. Hence my petulance and invective.
As for inundationists – well it’s not exactly what the research is showing eh? So let us as always distinguish between what the scientists are ACTUALLY reporting and what the spruikers make of it. Spruikers should get their bums kicked if they misreport it.
So where I get ancy is that it is fashionable to mindlessly boot the science just because one has disdain for the political, media, activist group or policy response.
But we do have a very recent publication (close to top of comments here) that says the real world if running on the high edge of the predictions, especially for sea level rise. And some concern about ice melt occurring more rapidly than in the 4AR – although maybe it’s decadal. Jury still out.
And on real science – what could be a better ending than a real climate beauty – where Hansen’s track record is given a rake over. Read it and weep ! It’s called validation !
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
(Peter will hate it 🙂 )
Meanwhile back at the real Australian drought Luke is still worried and pacing up and down.
No,
Luke is pacing back and forth, muttering, “it’s a model, it’s a game, it’s a model, it’s a game.”
There are lots of people who get so lost in computer models/games that navigating reality becomes a real challenge, and they’re so bent on winning anything at all that they become… bent.
Rot Schiller – the point I’m making which is lost on totalitarian anti-choice anti-capitalist ideologues like yourself if that the models here have checked out ! (Do try to keep up)
Realclimate looks at the real results of early models and scenarios from 1988. Looking like they were right on the money to me.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
Sorry Luke, you already posted that link. As usual, Schiller replies with a quip, but no actual comment on the substance.
You guys keep returning to a line of argument that assumes that we don’t believe any of the modelled output. This is wrong. The issue is primarily one of interpretation of character and scale of impacts.
This device of presenting motherhood science and then using it as some sort of validation of other extreme guestimates only brings your motives into question and reinforces the perception that climate change is more religious doctrine than scientific theory.
So lets spell this out. To doubt the extent of a phenomenon is not the same as doubting the existence of that phenomenon.
To question how an estimate has been obtained, or the size of that estimate, is not a personal attack on the integrity of the estimator.
SJT – No worries – send us an email – address in blog url
Luke / SJT
In the RC post, “Scenario A assumed exponential growth in forcings, Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in forcings, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards”.
Didn’t the rate of anthro CO2 emissions almost double in the last 20 years? (Too busy to find a real link but this will do… http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1127-co2.html )
Isn’t it therefore logical that the measured temp should have been close to Scenario A? Or at least the temp should have been between A and B. Instead it is mostly BELOW the “constant” Scenario C…!
I don’t see what you’re getting so excited about – that model at least was a crock.
cheers
Arnost
Ian – yea well that’s all fair enough – but your commentary is laced with a fair bit of “I reckon they just made up those numbers”.
Arnost – the temperature-CO2 relation is approximately logarithmic which is why future temperature increases tend to be approximately linear when CO2 increases exponentially.
I’m sorry Luke, but what you have said makes no sense to me…
Please tell me where I’m going wrong.
If forcings:
are static –> they remain at same level (i.e. no change)
increase linearly –> the RATE of change remains constant
increase exponentially –> the RATE of change increases
Fact: The RATE of CO2 emissions has doubled since 1988.
Therefore according to the model the temps should be above Scenario B and very close to (even above) Scenario A.
Why then are they below Scenario C – which assumes “linear increase to 2000 and no increase from then”?
cheers
Arnost
Arnost
RTFM. Read the IPCC reports. The effects of CO2 increase at a reduced rate as the concentration of CO2 increases. That is because even though we count CO2 concentration at 100’s of parts per million, that’s enough to nearly saturate the effect and plug up the holes it’s filling in the spectrum. The enhanced greenhouse effect due to feedback, eg, increased albedo, still take some time to flow on. If the level of CO2 was to remain constant now, the temperate will still increase for many years due to the feedback effects.
So the CO2 atmospheric ppm curve is exponential? You’re telling me this !
Log-ing an exponential curve linearises it? Maths ?
Every time you double CO2 you get another 4 watts sq m of radiative forcing.
So the forcing keeps increasing linearly with an exponential growth in CO2.
Said another way: For CO2 the radiative forcing is proportional to the logarithm of its concentration. Consequently doubling the CO2 concentration has the same warming effect, regardless of the baseline.
http://climatechange.unep.net/jcm/doc/jcm/pan/radforplot.html
Increasing the parameter “radiative forcing for CO2 doubling” (expert level only) does not have a big effect on the temperature, since the effect of CO2 on the latter is prescribed by the “climate sensitivity” (temperature rise for CO2 doubling). However it adjusts the relative influence of CO2 compared to other greenhouse gases, aerosols and solar variability. Both these parameters are used together, in fitting the simple model to a range of GCM predictions.
CO2 growing exponentially? Really???
Luke – as much as I would love to, I’m sorry but I just don’t have time to get distracted by what you just wrote and can’t play.
Bottom line: the observed temps are below those projected in a scenario where “constant forcings from 2000 onwards” were assumed. (Makes what you posted above totally irrelevant).
By the way – there are a couple of other things in play.
I compared the graph in RC with the graph in Hansen et al 1988
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1988/Hansen_etal.html
And they are identical with the exception that the temp ends 1987 or thereabouts.
The RC graph then continues the temperatures to 2005 where it conveniently ends, and “swindle-esquely” does not include 2006 where it would have taken a significant dip downwards – further highlighting the fact that the most current measured global annual temp is well “below” ALL the projections.
I also wonder if the measured temperatures that are in the RC are adjusted downwards to correct for the post 70’s global temps upward adjustments that are done as per:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
If the temps are not corrected to bring them back to the same basis – this will further increase the amount that measured global annual temp is “below” ALL the projections.
I repeat – this model is not one that I would crow over.
cheers
Arnost
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev_png
and from http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1127-co2.html – is the curve linear Toby ??
A good attempt at distraction from the issue – nice try.
The original post that I did on this was swallowed by Jen’s blog machine. So pardon the brevity.
The “best case” Scenario C was predicated on a linear increase to 2000 “but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards”. This implies no further increase in CO2. CO2 has been increasing and the instrumental tem is below this – so all your arguments above are irrelevant.
There are two other issues.
The first is that the instrumental temp in the RC graph conveniently ends in 2005. If 2006 was included there would be a big downspike clearly illustrating the divergence from the model.
The second is that as per Hansen et al 1998 & 1999 there were upward adjustments to the instrumental record. These appear not to be accounted for in the RC graph – the effectof which would have further illustrated the divergence from the model.
This model was nothing to crow about.
cheers
Arnost
A single 2006 point invalidates the model does it – are you nuts ? You could have said that a many downturns. And we could put in warm starts to 2007 and bend it up again too!? Loopy thinking to the max.
On 1998 – the model doesn’t factor in El Nino spikes. Come on !!
Have you ever modelled natural phenomena in your life our are you an accountant? or even worse an engineer.
And of course the land+ocean is below the line – you can work out why as an exercise. Ain’t hard !
Toby if you’re not satisfied with model performance like that you’re kidding yourself. Any better and the results would be fudged ! Hansen’s stuff says the broad principle of greenhouse forcing seems to be right on the money thus far.
I apologise for my doubting the ‘exponential’ nature of recent c02 growth, it is a reasonable way to describe it. I was thinking in ‘lay terms’ and a move from 280 to 380 in 100 years does not ‘seem’ exponential, but its rate of increase has not been linear so i retract my statement. Is it projected/expected to grow exponentially into the future?
Toby – depends what humanity does or does not do about CO2 – have a look at the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios – many different paths to the future.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/005.htm
But as Arnost link shows the current business as usual emission rate has jumped from 1% in the 1990s to 2.5% of late.
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1127-co2.html
For gods sake arnost, if an economist managed a prediction as good as that over 20 years, he’d have been awarded a Nobel Prize.
Luke
As usual, you are obfuscating an inconvenient fact and trying to divert to an unrelated issue.
But, as usual I’ll bite, and politely address each of your points in turn.
2006 – Whilst I agree that one datum does not make trend – the fact remains that Gavin could have very easily included this year. After all, this datum has been available for 4 months. The fact that it wasn’t is therefore very “swindle-esque” (NB: I used this neologism first!) in order to achieve a more visually compelling outcome.
For those that are interested, open this page and have a look at the downtick at the very end
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
and then imagine it in this graph
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
my guess that the dark black line would reach halfway between the values for 2004 & 2005.
2007 – Whilst we may have had a very warm May here in Australia, it is cooling elsewhere – especially the Pacific sub-SSTs. The La Nina progs are getting stronger each week.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/ENSO-summary.shtml
Further, the PDO index has been either negative or only slightly positive since the middle of last year.
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest
And if (as is likely) the El Nino does eventuate and the PDO remains where it is (or trends more into the negative) – I think that Hansen is going to choke on his prediction.
El Nino spikes – First, as I said the blog ate my more detailed post of 5.00pm. This may have led to a bit of confusion – I did not say anything about 1998 El Nino. What I said was that it appears that the most recent instrumental record appears to have been spliced on to the Hansen 1988 temps in the RC graph, and that this means that the upward adjustments to the GISS global temperatures as per Hansen et al 1999 and Hansen et al 2001 (my bad when I said 1998) were not accounted for.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal.pdf
Accounting for these should either lower the instrumental temp record post 1988, or increase the starting point temp of the projections. Doing either would result in the instrumental record being even lower than it is in the RC representation (i.e. more BELOW the “low estimate” Scenario C).
The Ad Hom – Can I politely ask what’s with this and what is the relevance? Out of courtesy I privately emailed you some of my quals some time ago when I offered you a beer and a chat, and now you are trashing me in public (so – hint – check out what the Masters Degree is in). Looks like you learnt a lot from Bird.
As to the land/sea thing – educate me then. And by the way as you do this, can you please address the question of why is it that the model is so spot on if the instrumental record is BELOW the “low estimate” scenario which assumes a linear increase and “then close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards”. I presume that we agree that “constant” means NO increase in CO2 etc and makes all the previous re exponential/linear discussion irrelevant?
SJT,
I doubt it. In this case the economist would have said something tantamount to “that it realistically can not be below this range” – and it was. Lots of egg on face, trillions of dollars lost – IgNobel Prize candidate.
cheers
Arnost
Arnost – as for the Ad Hom – I reviewed the said email found what you’re complaining about at the very bottom as a set of letters (acronyms). Frankly I’m still not exactly sure what your quals mean. I have not intentionally used any personal information (which I had no memory of seeing anyway) – but if you feel personally sleighted in this matter then I apologise. As for Bird comparo – there are some differences – no string of obscenities nor multiple promises to come around and assault you. So frankly I’m most offended now by the comparison.
And whta’s the relevance – pretty simple – doesn’t look like you know much about statistics in an analysis here. Leaving off a data point in an ever evolving time series is always an issue with these sort rolling problems. i.e. time goes on. Data series may not always have the latest year. Anyway the point would be well within the series – not off the chart. Comparing to swindlesque is farcical – those skanky dudes left off decade(s). So pathetic Arnost – you would have no changed outcome on a statistical interpretation. One swallow doesn’t make a summer. The trend is your friend !
My 2007 warming comment was about the record temperatures in North America and elsewhere. So if you want to play that game of latest data then we can bend it up.
As for La Nina and PDO (PDO we have no forecast of the PDO – it’s simply tracked) – let’s wait and see. And El Nino and La Nina events are all different – could be a whopper or a fizzer in respect of rainfall and temperatures. Near zero PDO = little reinforcement of La Nina effect anyway.
So you now want to count data points we don’t even have. And you distrust climate models but you’re happy to take a forecast La Nina model projection here when it suits – not impressed Arnost.
I should have said you were an economist – someone who counts wool unshorn from lambs unborn. (Gee – please tell me that you’re not an economist too 🙂 Have I offended New Zealanders and Tasmanians yet ?? So many groups such little time).
“Hansen is going to choke on his prediction” from a single datum – ROTFL Arnost?! – bolsh
Oceans – simply the temperature trend will lag as RC discusses. We’ve been here before too in semi-related issues – the southern hemisphere having much more ocean area.
As for splicing data sets I can’t see anything in what you’re on about. They’ve used a reecnt data set and I can’t see any reason to doubt their analysis unless you want to show us some “graph fiddling”. Happy to consider if you explain some more.
SJT, for your information many many economists routinely get their models dead right. The national budget is based on economic models and the numbers usually come in very close to estimates. And the good ones who are not employed by Treasury tend to work in Merchant Banks where the bonus’ are not too good if the models are crap. I actually placed a few at Macquarie Bank where, judging by their recent profit reports, the modellers are doing exactly what they are getting paid to do, get it right.
Arnost has raised a very good point about missing current information that is less “convenient” for the climate cadres. I recently had to wade through 8 pages of google images to find a global temperature graph that had any data post 2001.
It seems the levelling off and slight decline in temperatures this century was not as sexy as the line reaching for the stratosphere prior to 2000.
And this puts Church’s claims about Pinatubo causing a temperature and sea level decline in 1992 in a different light because the scale of the drop after 1998 is of similar scale, the duration is longer and the trend change is even more significant but we don’t seem to have a volcano to attribute it to.
Luke – I’d still like to have a beer with you one day – so let’s leave this one alone.
The trend is indeed your friend – but only if you are a technical trader / scalper. However in all cases, whether you are a fundamental or technical trader, the latest data is critical as it SETS the future trend. By the way, I also agree that TGGWS was a bit careless – but they could have done a far better job of highlighting (and if I now can use this word) the SHONKY state of climate science. We can take this up another time.
WRT to statistics, my problem is that the RC graph appears to have spliced ADJUSTED instrumental records on to the UNADJUSTED instrumental records in the original Hansen 1988 graph.
GISS now adjusts its temps as per the Hansen 1999 and 2001 papers (linked previously) (i.e. all the GISS post 2001/2 years are adjusted upwards – Tamino recently had an interesting debate on this as well as multiple on CA). The effect is clearly seen in comparing the GISS global land /sea graph below:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif
with the equivalent HadCRU graph in below:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
The fact that GISS has 2005 whereas HadCRU (still) has 1998 as the warmest year ever is the telling point.
It is statistically invalid to do this – if the reason for the adjustment applied equally to the pre 1988 data (which according to the 1999 and 2001 papers it probably did), then to get a statistically meaningful result, the adjustment has to done to both, or to neither.
The fact is that without the latest datum plus the adjusted temps splice makes the RC graph ever so much more visually compelling and so is to a certain extent misleading. So my swindlesque comment stands.
As to future temps – this can not be proven one way or the other until you get to that future time. We’ll see how warm this year will be in 8 months time. Maybe I’ll eat my words then – will you?
By the way – the ocean temp lag is not relevant. If you use this argument then you must also accept that the Hansen 1988 model is flawed in that it did not take it into account.
cheers
Arnost
Arnost – is not Hansen modelling land temps not ocean temps? In any case the ocean temps need to adjusted upwards given the latest review a few weeks ago!!!
And TGGWS – a bit careless sheeesh – imagine TGGWS in the dock – sorry we were a bit careless and accidentally shot your client 4 times and stabbed him also by accident. We slipped. mmmmm
A cooler year this year matters naught – see how many times in last 30 years you would have said it was a cooling trend on the next number !
The 2005 vs 1998 argument is a bit of a pub debate. Which analysis etc. Does it matter that much? I’m happy to say they were “close”.
I’m considering the splicing issue above and what was done.