UN climate body in panic mode as satellite temperatures turn down and a hard winter lashes both hemispheres
A soprano thrillingly hits her top-A, sighs with relief at achieving the desired effect, and moves on. But not the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) whose climate alarmism started to crescendo in 2001 in the Third Assessment Report (3AR) with the statement that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely (>66% probable) to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.
Recently, in their Fourth Assessment Report (4AR), and faced with their failure to convince the public that the sky is falling, the IPCC delivers even more preposterous advice in ever shriller tones, saying that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% probable) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”. The wobble around top-A is clearly discernible.
The press, most of whom have firmly identified with the alarmist cause, continues to appease the Green gods by faithfully running IPCC’s now unrealistic scientific propaganda, thereby stoking public alarm; the science is a done deal, they say, and the time has come to stop talking. According to UK journalist, Geoffrey Lean, all that is lacking to solve the global warming “crisis” is political will from governments.
Well, thank the Lord for that lack. For the IPCC’s 2007 final Summary for Policymakers shows that the climate alarmists are at last on the run. Their evidence for dangerous, human-caused global warming, always slim, now lies exposed in tatters for all to see.
In contrast, the alternative, persuasive and non-alarmist view of climate change is well summarized in two recently issued and readily available documents. The first is a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations, which was released at the UN’s Bali conference last December, supported by the signatures of 103 eminent professional persons. The second is the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, the release of which coincided with the launch of the International Climate Science Coalition at a major climate rationalist conference in New York in early March.
The evidence for dangerous global warming adduced by the IPCC has never been strong on empirical science. Endless circumstantial scare campaigns have been run about melting glaciers, more droughts and storms and floods, sea-level rise and polar bears, but all founder on one inescapable problem – as does Mr. Al Gore’s over-hyped science fiction film. And that is that we live on a naturally variable planet. Change is what planet Earth does on all scales, and so far not one of the alleged effects of human-caused global warming has been shown to lie outside normal planetary variation. Sea-level rising? Sure, it happens. And the appropriate response is adaptation, as the Dutch have known for centuries.
Stuck with the absence of empirical evidence for dangerous warming or abnormal change, in 2001 the IPCC turned to graphmanship, giving prominence in its 3AR to the so-called “hockey-stick” record of temperature over the last 1000 years. The hockey-stick graphic, which appeared to show dramatic increases of temperature during the 20th century compared with earlier times, has now been exposed as statistical chicanery and, thankfully, is nowhere to be seen in the 4AR.
No hockey-stick and no empirical evidence, what is a man to do? Well, obviously, turn to virtual reality rather than real reality: PlayStation 4 here we come.
The IPCC’s expensive and complex computer models can be programmed to produce any desired result, and it is therefore not surprising that they uniformly predict warming since 1990. Meanwhile, the real-world global average temperature has stubbornly refused to obey this stricture. It exhibits no significant increase since 1998, and the preliminary 2007 year-end temperature confirms the continuation of a temperature plateau since 1998 to which is now appended a cooling trend over the last 3 years.
Is global cooling next?
“Best fit” of yearly average temperature
Lower atmosphere global temperature differences (0C) from 1979 – 1998 average
“Global warming theory indicates that temperature rise due to increasing carbon dioxide emissions should be most prominent at heights of 5-10 km in the lower atmosphere; instead, more warming is occurring at the surface. For the lower atmosphere, the satellite data indicate that, since the 1998 El Nino when temperatures spiked 10C due to a rise in water vapour emissions (the principal “greenhouse gas”), global temperatures dropped sharply, then stabilized and now show signs of continuing down – is global cooling next? (data courtesy of Professors John Christy and Roy Spencer, University of Alabama , Huntsville ; a best-fitted spline curve represents longer term temperature trends).”
Read the entire Canada Free Press article here.
Dr. Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, who studies ancient environments and climate, and whose website is at http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I have yet to see a single Rudd government minister even acknowlege that temperatures may have levelled out. Where would that leave a large chunk of government policy?
I have yet to see a single AGWer.Acknowledge that there is a slight ocean cooling and that there is a slight cooling in at least the last 5 years.
“Panic mode”. You mean besides getting science wrong, you also indulge in wasting everyone’s time with creating fiction. It’s a common practice here, inventing motivations and thoughts for other people, then attacking them for having those fictional thoughts.
It seems more clearly obvious that we are simply operating in an area that is about 5% higher than the base period, and have been for some time. This is an area we have never exceeded in recent history. It is unknown if we shall.
There is not one shred of credible empirical evidence to support either the contention it is warming or cooling, there are only indexes of departures from global means. Currently, these indexes show higher yearly numbers of a variable nature than in the recent past going back to the late 1800’s, as well as multi-decadal trends over time.
Last year’s index shows that there was a rise from the base period of .57 which is slightly above 4% of the nominal global mean of 14 C, and the 127 year trend of .7 is 5% of this number.
However, although this does not mean that there is not what we would call warming, the index seems a poor way to try and see if the climate is indeed under upward pressures as to energy levels, nor to attempt to establish a causal relationship of some sort between the climate and the various human activities that could influence it. This is both because of the instruments we have collected and continue to collect the information with, and the methods with which we derive the index from that information.
If this is what settled science looks like, then perhaps a paradigm shift is in order. Although it appears one is in the works one way or another.
The IPCC and its minions in the media have decided to vilify DR. Fred Singer on US ABC TV (See Greenie Watch 25 March).
That the AGW’ers are now resorting to public vilification simply supports Bob Carter’s statement that the IPCC is on the run.
Good examples are in this blog when the mini-minions descend into personal vilification when their beliefs are challenged by contradiction.
“Lower atmosphere global temperature differences (0C) from 1979 – 1998 average”
In which you can clearly see the warming trend. We will only know in 5 years or so whether this recent downturn is an inflexion point or a peak. With nothing changing in the major forcings this is just a La Nina inflexion point like what has happened many times since 1870, which of course Bob Carter does not show.
For some strange reason while we have all the deniers falling over themselves to claim that La Nina is the end of global warming and the start of global cooling they were strangely silent in 1998 when, using the same strange short sighted logic, El Nino warming should have been proclaimed as proof positive of global warming.
Obviously people with more understanding of climate realise that global systems like ENSO and volcanic eruptions can change the global temperature up and down, however you need to look at the underlying trend to see what is happening. Therefore none of these people proclaimed 1998 as proof positive of global warming exactly like they are not claiming now that La Nina is the start of global cooling.
We will have to leave that sort of speculation to others with much less understanding of the climate or an agenda that they are pushing.
We have several reasons to move to a less carbon intensive future and use energy much more efficiently than we do now. If we do this there might be a bit more to go around. To think that one year of temperature downturn means that the party can start up again is ludicrous.
You must admit that Bob does write well. An article that would make any warmer break out in a cold sweat. I hadn’t heard much of the Canadian Free Press (CFP). Why do New Zealanders break globally significant news in Canada – coz denialism is government sanctioned there. Anyway CFP must be a big time Canadian daily.
And shades of impending doom as I noticed the advertisment for “Free Book on Prophecy
Are the latest devastating weather patterns connected to the end-time?”. Holy doley – is this a skeptic forecast – err prophecy that the world is actually going to end. But then I was cheered up by the attractive ladies from China and feel that Ms P622012 from Yunnan would be well worth getting an opinion from. Their web site assured me that they would love me long time.
CFP staff certainly seem embroiled in their share of controversial issues too – like 9/11 conspiracies and tobacco again. But is that relevant. I don’t know. I couldn’t see any adverts for astroturf.
So the IPCC are on the run. Well you could detect the fear at Bali – everyone drank up knowing that would be the last of the largesse. Will we see IPCCers jumping from buildings as the terror spreads. I hadn’t heard of a panic but I reckon you can sense it.
Anyway had Wegman or McIntryre checked out the regression from that graph. I had wondered if a positively sloping linear regression would have given a better fit – perhaps they forgot to try that one. And it does seem a little curious that left hand side is going up when the temperatures were going down, but hey you get those artifacts.
And a pity the data don’t include the Arctic. And it would be good if we could get the water vapour and straospheric confounding out of the signal too. One day someone should clean that satellite data up properly. But mere details.
If you start from the year 2000 – which is a lot more even as a number – it has warmed. So why start with a funny number like 1998 – I reckon move the base line. 2000 sounds like a fresh start – where 1998 seems decidedly retro. But then you’d have to go to all the trouble of editing the text – leave it go.
Manhattan Declaration sounds like a WWII project. Do denialists really have the bomb? Lord help us (Monckton that is).
But all jokes aside this is important news – why mess around with the CFP – I reckon go the Australian newspaper. Full page expose.
Get on the front foot – go the cooling disaster forecast – take the lead.
Get Brendan on board – say no to increased power bills and fewer V8s. Send Rudd a clear message. Aussie wool can rise again as the commodity of value in a chilly world. We can have a sheeps back led recovery. The course forward is obvious.
IPCC on the run? Maybe in more ways then we think. They just might have to amend the radiative forcing of black coal which they appear to have under-estimated drastically: IPCC estimate b/w 0.2-0.4 watts per metre squared compared to the most recent paper (V. Ramanathan and Greg Carmichael to appear on March 23 in Nature Geoscience titled “Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon”) which estimates it to be approx. 0.9 watts per metre squared.
See:
http://climatesci.org/2008/03/25/new-paper-elevates-the-role-of-black-carbon-in-global-warming/
and
http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=891
Tim Lambert is paranoid again: Jennifer is part of the “efficient disinformation cycle”
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/the_disinformation_cycle.php
Where is my oil money?
ender:
“Lower atmosphere global temperature differences (0C) from 1979 – 1998 average”
“In which you can clearly see the warming trend.”
Indeed, the two deep minima in 1983 and 1992 were caused by cooling volcanos, how about taking those out?
Paul, why does the “best fit” on Bob’s graphic start above the 1979 temp? What data is that best fit based on? And what method does he use, it looks like he cut and pasted a sine curve over the top.
Why do all ‘skeptic’ articles read like propaganda? They seem to be fluffed out with irrelevant commentary. What’s all the rubbish about singing? If he had a concrete argument it would be compelling without all the garnishings.
It’s more lightweight nonsense.
See more proof of no global warming
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=29&ContentID=64498
Bob Carter with the latest on the IPCC then an update from Greenie Watch by Louis….ha ha!
C’Mon fellows, we need more than that incomplete sine curve to convince an educated public
Please explain to me the melting of arctic sea ice, and the subsequent erosions forcing people from established human habitats.
While there are many points of contention offered here, I do not see the comprehensive theory that explains the full range of phenomena being witnessed.
What is the competing theory you offer to anthropogenic climate change?
Thanks
Very interesting piece. It reminds me very much of the old Pravda style of writing. Phrases like:
“Their evidence for dangerous, human-caused global warming, always slim, now lies exposed in tatters for all to see.”
really take me back to the good old days. This blog should change its name to the Ministry of Truth.
Peter F. Lulin:
If you are going to talk about temperatures in percentage terms then you should use absolute zero as your base.
That makes 0.6 deg C above long term average a whole (0.6 x 100)/287 or about 0.2% not 4%. Not that this is a particularly useful way to look at this anyway.
Mr T: Bob Carter, I suspect, is not being entirely serious here but the hypothesis that temperatures will continue to increase due to additional CO2 is in trouble right now. Given that Bob Carter is a professional paleo-climatologist I’d hardly call him a lightweight. If he is, so are James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt and particularly Mann. Getting their adjustment methods out of them seems akin to getting blood out of a stone.
Yes, Hans, Ender knows perfectly well that most of the so-called warming trend from 1983 to 1998 is exaggerated by -0.5C of volcanic activity. Add this back into the numbers and the plateau extends back to at least 1992 (16 years), the long term mean rises and the trend line gets flatter to the point where all can see that AGW is much ado about nothing at all.
http://www.geocities.com/mcmgk/TempAdjust2.html?1199762345031
And when this revised data is used to calculate CO2 sensitivity we get outcomes well below +1.0C and out go all the silly “scarenarios”.
“Learn The Secret “Big Oil” Doesn’t Want You to Know…” don’t you luv adds in your entertainment – Canada free press page
A hand drawn graph from anon tendered as evidence. ROTFL.
Jennifer has been very nice to me and invited me to join her blog. Thank you Jennifer …so 1st post
The problem with Bob Carter’s article is not the “hand drawn graph from anon tendered as evidence” (Luke, calculate and draw your own means, mate and leave the low-level sarcasm to Sesame Street) but the extreme improbability of AGW people acknowledging the evidence in the populist media. “Keep the horses frightened” is a winning technique.
Perhaps someone could point to me a credible rebuttal of Jawoworski 2004. For the life of me I’ve not been able to find one. By credible, I mean at the same level as Jawoworski’s paper.
That the IPCC’s models are not predictive, but rather “what if” scenarios, deliberately obscures from the populist gaze that none of these scenarios have come within coo-ee of measured reality for a decade. That is fraud, pure and simple.
Ianl:That the IPCC’s models are not predictive, but rather “what if” scenarios, deliberately obscures from the populist gaze”
I think that factor is itself obscured from the public gaze the impression I get is that much of the populace imagines they are predictive. This is done by failing to show the results of “what if” scenarios that go the opposite direction.
Jan: Yes, that’s exactly why it is deliberate fraud.
In a very real way, I am quite grateful to the AGW people. Most of my life I had genuinely wondered how the insane notions that are that the core of all religions could possibly gain widespread acceptance.
Now I’ve seen it happen … amazing !
I’m still hoping for a rebuttal link for Jawoworski
Re Patrick
“Please explain to me the melting of arctic sea ice”
What melting of arctic sea ice?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
Which Ministry of Truth have you been getting your information from?
Bob C.
“The hockey-stick graphic, which appeared to show dramatic increases of temperature during the 20th century compared with earlier times, has now been exposed as statistical chicanery”
I wonder if Bob is aware of Linah Ababneh’s doctoral dissertation. The destruction of the Hockey stick goes far beyond an exposure of Mann’s parlour tricks. Ababneh’s dissertation shows that Mann’s most heavily weighted proxy has virtually no correlation to temperature.
Ianl:I’m still hoping for a rebuttal link for Jawoworski.
While I don’t completely go along with it he raises concerns that, if they lead to investigation, can lead to discovering other flaws in various theorems (on both sides) and the work that needs to be done is daunting and the cost non-trivial. For instance how does the gas mixture at the firn layer compare with the surface? Gas chromatography is a highly developed science but I doubt anyone has done any studies on the effects of gravity and naturally occuring 90 -140 year old columns of snow on air. Could lead to CO2 concentrations over time to be either understated or overstated I don’t know.
Does anyone?
Ianl
Your comments reveal a lot. It shows that the skeptics who post here, only see the ‘AGW side’ as polotically motivated. Personally I find this a particularly unconvincing argument.
As a geologist I have read many articles on paleoclimate modelling, all of which use greenhouse scenarios. It’s not flimsy science. To suggest that it is a religion is nonsense.
I tried Google Scholar on your paper “Jawoworski 2004”
There were no results. Id the spelling correct?
Ianl
Your comments reveal a lot. It shows that the skeptics who post here, only see the ‘AGW side’ as politically motivated. Personally I find this a particularly unconvincing argument.
As a geologist I have read many articles on paleoclimate modelling, all of which use greenhouse scenarios. It’s not flimsy science. To suggest that it is a religion is nonsense.
I tried Google Scholar on your paper “Jawoworski 2004”
There were no results. Id the spelling correct?
Well it is a hand drawn graph.
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=12
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
“That the IPCC’s models are not predictive, but rather “what if” scenarios” wow – we never knew that.
Ianl,
Also I find it amusing that you accuse the IPCC of “fraud” – which is actually a very serious offence. Where’s your proof?
“The problem with Bob Carter’s article is not the “hand drawn graph from anon tendered as evidence” (Luke, calculate and draw your own means, mate and leave the low-level sarcasm to Sesame Street) but the extreme improbability of AGW people acknowledging the evidence in the populist media. “Keep the horses frightened” is a winning technique.”
And this statement is nonsense.
How can the problem with Bob Carter’s article “the extreme improbability of AGW people acknowledging the evidence in the populist media.” It doesn’t actually make any logical sense. If Bob Carter tries to make a case, by drawing a sine curve over some data then he should have justified it. He makes no case and ladens it with superfluous attacks, that’s the problem with his article.
A “what if” scenario is not predictive.
Can someone tell me the point of it then?
What sort of “through the looking glass”world is this?
Try “Jaworowski” if looking for the paper.
Ianl,
Jaworowski 2004 (correct spelling now) isn’t published anywhere… So it’s no wonder people haven’t published a rebuttal to the paper, as it doesn’t exist.
He (she?) wrote something about mistakes in the pre-industrial levels of CO2, but that’s not been published. Is this what you are talking about?
A piece of the Wilkins Ice Shelf has broken off – headline news.
The argument that the polar ice is decreasing is nonsensical if the “Cryosphere Today” graph is examined – see the following links courtesy Tilo Reber above.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Mr T,you accuse the IPCC of “fraud” – which is actually a very serious offence.
No serious offence in the case of UN politicians it’s more a case of stating the obvious. Now that is a really serious offence.
Doug, The cryosphere website measures ice extent, not volume.
I trust you understand that ice can decrease in the third dimension.
Here it shows the thin-ness of Arctic ice:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17975
Here’s a more detailed image Doug
http://ccar.colorado.edu/arifs/forecasts.html
jan, you don’t think scientific fraud is a serious offence?
If it’s so obvious, where’s your proof?
I think this sums up Jaworowski’s opinions on ice cores. He does seem to have some familiarity with the field.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
MrT: I’m saying that the manipulation of populist mis-information is politically motivated fraud. That is why the real uncertainties and demonstrated failures of what-if scenarios are not published in the populist media.
If you don’t believe that it is a religion, then note that people who question both the data and inferences from it are called sceptics and heretics (Al Gore). That you are offended by this being pointed out is not my problem.
I’m a geo too. Of course climate is cycling. No straw men, please – it’s so tedious. The issue is whether homo sapiens is causing this cycle and if so to what degree. Carter’s point is that all measured changes are within natural variation limits. Agree or not, that is where the argument lies.
I misspelt Jaworowski previously (doing too many things at once is my plea). Quite a while ago I’ve found a plethora of comments and purported rebuttals (Google Scholar does it quite well), but most (I mean >90%) are simply pejorative and quite useless.
The only real issue I have found so far is this:
Jaworowski 2004: “… the average age of air was arbitrarily decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped”. This refers to analysed air bubbles trapped in a Greenland ice core. J is saying that the age of the air bubbles was deliberately “younged” by 83 years to fit the concept of increasing CO2 levels after 1890AD (date of ice). Depth of core and other variables are also involved. J is saying that the age of the trapped bubbles and the enclosing ice should be about the same.
Oeschger 2005: “…Another example concerns the gas-occlusion process in firn and young ice. This process has been studied in detail theoretically and experimentally. The theory of diffusion of gases in firn and the occlusion at the firn-ice transition has been confirmed impressively by the detection of a gravitational enrichment of the heavier gases and of the heavier isotopes of a gas. This enrichment depends, in the first instance, on the depth of the firn-ice transition. It enables the reconstruction of the history of gas enclosure depth during the last glacial-interglacial cycle”. O is saying that the age of the trapped bubbles may be considerably younger than that of the ice.
What I am hoping for is a demonstrable physical mechanism of bubble entrapment to sort that out.
It’s critical, as if J is even half-way right, the CO2 levels circa 1890 were high. Yes, I know these levels are increasing (again, no straw men please) but at what rate and specifically from what base ?
Luke:
“A hand drawn graph from anon tendered as evidence. ROTFL.”
Hmm, Took about ten minutes to produce this using raw RSS data, Excel, and a fourth order polynomial. Looks a lot like Bob’s don’t you think. Bob must have a very steady hand. Or Luke has a very loose brain.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/03/bob-carter-reproduction.html
Proteus:
The paper seems to say that the effects of black carbon are around 4 times greater than the IPCC assumed. Also that combined with sulphate aerosols they have a warming effect above the surface.
So what does this do for the “sulphates and particulates caused the cooling or masked the CO2 warming” between 1945 and 1975?
Better still, the paper is based on real measurements of the real world not computer models.
Tilo – was not referring to lead post graph – moreover Mott’s graph was the topic.
But while you’re there on the lead post – justification for a polynomial over a straight line is?? One liked it better?
“Carter’s point is that all measured changes are within natural variation limits. Agree or not, that is where the argument lies.” – no it doesn’t – that can mean anything. What does “natural” mean. Hardly scientific.
“Jennifer has been very nice to me and invited me to join her blog. Thank you Jennifer …so 1st post
..
Perhaps someone could point to me a credible rebuttal of Jawoworski 2004. For the life of me I’ve not been able to find one. By credible, I mean at the same level as Jawoworski’s paper.”
I have yet to see someone come up with a rebuttal for creationism or the tooth fairy.
SJT: I have yet to see someone come up with a rebuttal for creationism or the tooth fairy.
Then perhaps you’ll be kind enough to provide one for each then.
I saw ‘Hogfather” at Christmas last year. Terry Pratchett put’s forward the theory is really a goblin who decided to pay for children’s teeth so no-one could use them to manipulate their belief. I’m not sure he’s right either so do you actually have any data on this that we can work with?
I figured I’d stop by to remind Luke that he ought not refer to me in any sentence ever again without the words “spectacularly” and “vindicated” also included in that sentence.
Now Luke. Have you or have you not got any evidence for this racket?
You didn’t have any, you didn’t come up with any, and you couldn’t find anyone with any.
Now apologise to me for being a dishonest idiot.
SJT: that makes two so far on this forum who think that low-level sarcasm is clever
Ho hum
Tilo Reber, above. quotes.-
‘Mann’s most heavily weighted proxy has virtually
no correlation to temperature’.
Quite so; as I understand it the algorism, (not named after Al Gore, surely), is such that what ever data is fed in a “Hockey Stick” will be produced.
So, if the lyrics from ‘Annie Get Your Gun’ are fed in, lo we would still get a hockey stick graph!!
MrT: The fraud lies in not correcting populist media outbursts. “Frightening the horses” is not a nonsense – it is exactly what has been allowed to occur by not correcting these excesses. It is of no use saying that correction is open to heretics: the populist media will not grant coverage.
Example ? A few months ago (perhaps three, I can’t remember all the sillinesses), NASA and the UK BOM jointly published a statement correcting the “2005 hottest year on record” notion – back to 1934.
Fair enough, correction of interpretation with improved data is a genuine part of the scientific process. Granny (SMH) saw fit to publish this major correction on page 9 or 10 as a tiny paragraph. Calving glaciers (meaning that the glacier is growing) take page 1 with big colour piccies, minus comment on glacial growth rather than melting, of course. AGW adherents allow this overt form of censorship to occur without comment.
I am not using press releases as scientific evidence (that’s a vomitous notion). I am saying that deliberately not correcting populist misconceptions, thus keeping the horses frightened, is deliberate fraud. Perhaps that is why a considerable number of genuine scientists are dissenting.
All AGW adherents keep evading this point – “doesn’t exist, not relevant, unscientific … blah, blah”. The political power of populist fears is used to help change Governments, however, so this evasion certainly serves a purpose, doesn’t it ?
Mr T, If it’s so obvious, where’s your proof?
You need help with seeing the obvious? Quite apart from the fact that the Summary for Policy Makers is at odds with quite a bit within the reports some of which is quite good we still have the problem that there is no exposition of how temperature increase of ~3K */- 1.5k is to be expected from a doubling of CO2 concentrations. There is good reason for this absence. First step is to calculate radiative power sensitivity to temperature change. Starting with Stefan-Boltzmann for black/grey bodies.
Q = {epsilon}{sigma}T^4 to get the sensitivity differentiate.
dQ/dT = 4*{epsilon}{sigma}T^3 (see how simple it is most leave out {epsilon}=<1).
Taking the well accepted 1990 value of T=288K.
dQ/dT = 4*5.67E-8*288^3*{epsilon} = 5.42W/m^2K
Now the well accepted though disagreeably termed 3.7 W/m^2 atmospheric radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2 and the lower limit of atmospheric emissivity {epsilon} of .7.
dQ/dT= .7* 5.42 = 3.79W/m^2K
now to see if it works dividing the well accepted radiative forcing and the IPCC value of temperature
3.79/3=1.26W/m^2K which is 1/3 of what it aught to be.
even taking the lower IPCC value for temperature we get
3.79/1.5 = 2.53 which is significantly lower.
In the very first step the values that the IPCC promotes are logically, mathematically and physically incoherent.
I leave it as an exercise to calculate how hot it should be with a ~3k/2xCO2 given a CO2 concentration of 380ppmv when you start with an initial concentration of zero providing no warming. You’ll be surprised just how coherent my calculation above is.
Watch out for the singularities though. It is easy to see that the sort of numbers they are quoting is not possible (Stephen Schwartz is in the ball park though a little optimistic)
Great article. Thanks for posting it!
If it’s alright, I would like to add a link to the Blogging Tories.
Cheers!!
Ianl, you seem to be indulging in fraud of your own
“Example ? A few months ago (perhaps three, I can’t remember all the sillinesses), NASA and the UK BOM jointly published a statement correcting the “2005 hottest year on record” notion – back to 1934.”
This was for the continental United States, not the world.
“The fraud lies in not correcting populist media outbursts. “Frightening the horses” is not a nonsense – it is exactly what has been allowed to occur by not correcting these excesses. It is of no use saying that correction is open to heretics: the populist media will not grant coverage.”
You expect the IPCC to monitor media and correct them whenever they are wrong? That’s a ludicrous expectation.
Jan, you may disagree with what the IPCC has said (or left out) but that’s hardly fraud. If you think you have a method, go and publish it. Moaning about it on blogs doesn’t do anything.
The recent antarctic ice shelf partial collapse isn’t the same as a glacier calving. It’s a scale quite a lot larger than that. Jeepers why not read what the NSIDC says. It’s going to be a lot more reliable than any blog.
Why not give up the conspiracy rubbish and think.
“Why not give up the conspiracy rubbish and think.”
But that’s where it all starts.
MrT:
Three straw men:
the newspaper (not me) believed and reported it as worldwide but then buried it in the back pages … at the least, bias
I asked why AGW adherents (yourself included), not the IPCC (straw man 2), don’t correct the populist media excesses. A possible conclusion is that accuracy only matters one way to AGW adherents
I did not refer to the very recent ice shelf incident – that’s your 3rd straw man – only the calving incidents constantly used to stoke populist fears. For larger incidents I seek reliable mapping data, as you say you do
How you can deny there is a political push in response to deliberately-stoked populist fears and guilt confounds me. Al Gore properly belongs in a Southern revivalist circus tent. Call it a fanciful, puerile conspiracy if you then feel better; it is observable fact on a daily, world-wide basis. This is the point you have danced around for post after post. There is no hope you will acknowledge it, but that won’t alter it either.
It’s just a pity for AGW adherents that warming in this current cycle peaked 10 years ago … must be very irritating. Oh well, another cycle will start.
Moaning ? I’m laughing. This blog is billed as a mix of politics and science … when the politics of populist fraud are exposed, it’s called “moaning”; that’s entertaining.
Now, I wonder if we can find another useful link (apart from Oeschger) on the trapped air bubble question ?
Ianl, you said the IPCC were guilty of fraud, I asked you explain why, you said the “fraud lies in not correcting populist media outbursts. “Frightening the horses” is not a nonsense – it is exactly what has been allowed to occur by not correcting these excesses. It is of no use saying that correction is open to heretics: the populist media will not grant coverage.”
Not a strawman. You changed the subject
Ok, so WE should be correcting the media… Ummm how? What sort of nonsense is that? If AGW proponents (whoever they are) rang the media and said “You got it wrong”, do you really think they’ll say “Oh Gee thanks, we’ll just publish a correction”. Seriously this is not going to happen. You can’t blame the media for going for ‘exciting’ news. It’s a Free Market.
Again, they’re not ‘calving incidents’. This is just some words you use to reassure yourself.
I also note you didn’t defend the 1934 “hottest year” claim… Yes got that a bit wrong didn’t you.
It’s not a pity about the warming trend you describe. For some strange reason you seem to think people who acknowledge AGW somehow WANT it to get warmer. Why on Earth would we want that? I come to this blog to check if there is anything I have missed, some fact that may demonstrate that AGW isn’t real, because THAT is what I want. I actually WANT AGW to be not real. It would make everyone’s life much easier. What is distressing is the ‘facts’ presented here aren’t based in science, they seem to be more based in a political mode. They’re about painting some conspiracy picture. It’s sad.
Again you keep mentioning ‘fraud’ with no evidence. Where is the fraud?
Mr T, aJan, you may disagree with what the IPCC has said (or left out) but that’s hardly fraud.
It’s fraud the math is simple.
If you think you have a method, go and publish it. Moaning about it on blogs doesn’t do anything.
Standard cop out a number of people have already pointed it out no-one has as yet been able to support the IPCC numbers, Now why don’t YOU show where it’s wrong.
Standard Pompous bilge.
Luke Instead of making your usual pompous remark which is in effect an admission that you have nothing better to offer why don’t you show where I’ve gone wrong if MR T isn’t up to it?
Luke:
“But while you’re there on the lead post – justification for a polynomial over a straight line is?”
A linear regression trend line give you the trend over the time period. But it give you no indication of how the trend might be changing.
Mr T.
Here it shows the thin-ness of Arctic ice:
Looks like an article about the age of the ice. Who cares how old it is. The only thing that matters as far as melting is concerned is how thick it is and how cold it is.
Ianl
Hans Oeschger has something to say about it. Apart from the fact that he was involved in the research into the methodology for the CO2 analysis in old ice he does show a definite bias toward a belief in a catastrophic climate response to increasing CO2 in the 3rd and second last paragraphs.
He does not actually go into detail about the methodology and precisely what is wrong with Jaworowski’s objections just says the method was well researched. He mentions studies at the firn-ice transition layer but no mention of the effect of the column of loose ice or snow above it but this may be an oversight.
http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/espr/Pdf/aId/7394
I’m going to have read Jaworowskis paper again now it has been while I’m not exactly sure what’s in it any more.
Ianl: Are you referring to Joworowski’s earlier paper 1996 if so the Oeschger response was to that one and not the later one (2007).
I can’t find a rebuttal to the second one. I though I had a scanned copy of he first somewhere but can’t find it so maybe I don’t anymore had a disk crash last year. I haven’t read the second one yet.
“For some strange reason you seem to think people who acknowledge AGW somehow WANT it to get warmer.”
Perhaps not you Mr T but certainly blokes like this:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the Earth Summit, June 1992 and a mentor of Al Gore’s.
Tilo “A linear regression trend line give you the trend over the time period. But it give you no indication of how the trend might be changing.”
True but in both directions.
To fit the polynomial curve you should be able to demonstrate that it’s a better fit. And why just that curve?
Indeed the curve does not make sense at it shows at left hand end a rising trend when the real trend goes down.
Any extrapolation forwards from a statistical regression is dangerous if you do not know the underlying processes.
And you really do need some justification to fitting curves other than because it suits your POV.
You could probably also fit a polynomial that goes down on the left hand side and up on the right. But it’s just more statistical chicanery.
IMO a straight line is an equally valid hypothesis. Particularly if you went back to 1900.
Jan Pompe,
The Jawaroski pp has already been provided by someone earlier,here it is again.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
You are right, I have not seen a sensible response/rebuttal either.
But then I havnt seen a decent rebuttal to many papers eg:
a) Jules Kalbfelds analysis, using classical chemistry and physical principles.
b) Stephen Swartz paper referred to above, by you.
c) John Macleans critique of the ethics and competence of the IPCC.
d) “Gust of Hot Airs” analysis showing that we in Aus will make only 0.000043C pa difference if we bugger up our economy and create pools of unemployed.
There is plenty of them,and quite a mix,but all of them pointing in the same direction.
Probably because they’re rubbish?
What, all of them, and all without any further qualification.
OK smart arse, lets start with just one then.
Just what is wrong with the Stephen Schwartz paper that in your estimable opinon makes it rubbish.
And please, because you are obviously so knowledgeable, in your own words.
Jan, quit dodging. You claim the IPCC has committed fraud – it is your responsibility to prove it. You wrote a bunch of maths equations and claim “There I proved it” – well that’s not enough. You have to publish it, otherwise it’s worth nothing.
You are doing what I call a ‘Dodgy Descatre’:
“I reckon, therefore I’m right”
It’s not up to me to prove you wrong. I’m not part of the IPCC, and haven’t made any claims about CO2 sensitivity.
you made claims the IPCC had committed scientific fraud, which is more than getting the maths wrong. It’s DELIBERATELY getting it wrong. Now you have shown no evidence of that, you posted some equations you reckon are right, in fact they’re so simple apparently they’re obviously right. So my question is, why hasn’t anyone else published what you have written? Why is it you that has discovered this fact? And if you have discovered it, why won;t you publish it? Why would you hold back? Did Galileo hold back?
Tilo,
Ice age is directly related to the thickness, did you read the article?
Malcolm,
“The Jawaroski pp has already been provided by someone earlier,here it is again.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
You are right, I have not seen a sensible response/rebuttal either.”
It’s not a paper. It’s an essay. You rebutt papers. Essays… well if he was serious about it he would publish it.
Also, have you looked for a rebuttal?
Jan,
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
I don’t know anything about this quote. So I won;t speculate. But if this is what you think AGW is about, then you are lost in a conspiracy theory maze. I hope you find your way out.
Jan
It could be a misquote,
Here’s the version I found:
“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse”
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/maurice_strong.html
This a different meaning to the quote you gave.
Jennifer. If I quote correctly, in an interview you said:
“Actually, no. The head of the IPCC has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognizes that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued … This is not what you’d expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you’d expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up … So (it’s) very unexpected, not something that’s being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it’s very significant.”
No, that is false reasoning. With fluctuations imposed upon a trend it is perfectly expected to have flat periods (that would have been downturns if no upward trend!) Good lord, just plot e.g. y = ax + RND(x) for cryin’ out loud! Do it, and look at the graph.
Well, that theoretical point was wrong, but it is still possible that the weather effects will cancel AGW as you claim later. But what if they don’t? Our asses are grass. Also, note that most of the conservation measures suggested to reduce CO2 are good policy anyway; saving money, conserving resources, lowering our dependence on foreign powers, etc.
Actually it’s JIM not JAN Mr T – and no I’m not lost in a conspiracy theory , I was pointing out that SOME AGW proponents obviously DO hope that we stay alarmed enough to accomplish a political objective.
You seem very quick ( as so many here are ) to attribute bad faith to any who disagree.
Just because kooks like Maurice want industrialised civilisations to end doesn’t invalidate a scientific theory.
Sorry Jim… my mistake
I think your quote is wrong. I searched for your quote and got two hits on two blogs.
I the searched on Maurice Strong, found lots of his quotes, in many different websites, and they all quote this:
“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse”
Which is completely different to yours. Just google that quote and see how many hits you get.
Mr T, Jan, quit dodging.
I’m not the one dodging where is your explanation of my error.
What I posted is pure textbook stuff not at all ground breaking people have been publishing it in textbooks since Clausius and Fourier walked the earth to little avail it seems. It has been pointed out to them Steve McIntyre as IPCC reviewer has asked for an exposition for their claimed ~3K +/- 1.5K (which is about as rubbery as it comes) sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 he was ignored. Yet you can’t tell me that they are unaware of the problem. It’s up to them to provide a reasonable exposition which they have failed consistently to and the keep pushing the numbers that are impossible on the simple basis I have shown and that is fraud. If you believe their malarky I have a method to make water run uphill without using power to sell you.
Jan,
I never claimed you made an error.
You claimed the IPCC were indulgin in scientific fraud. You have shown no evidence of this.
All you have done is shown that their maths is different from yours.
This is not scientific fraud.
I don’t know how they got their sensitivity value.
You seem to be confusing ‘failing to give an explanation’ with fraud.
“numbers that are impossible on the simple basis I have shown and that is fraud.”
You again are claiming that fraud is defined by poor maths. No, it isn’t.
You have shown no evidence of this.
I was beginning to think you didn’t understand now it’s confirmed. I had a fair idea you were mathematically illiterate but i didn’t think it was this bad.
” All you have done is shown that their maths is different from yours. ”
They have provided NO math, NO exposition in spite of being asked to by one of their reviewers, so how do you come by this tidbit of information. Yet they come out with the numbers as if it’s gospel.
One suspects they’ve done it and not come up with something difrerent. If they did I”m sure what amounts to a 10 line expose wouldn’t be too much trouble to include in the report. I would be very surprised if he haven’t then why haven’t they produced the exposition in the 4AR. The answer is obvious and it’s the physical equivalent of salting the ore samples.
I’ll see if I can find the link ; I actually saved the quote some time ago.
I don’t agree however that there is a vast difference between the two ; clearly Maurice thinks the demise of industrial civilisation is a good thing!
Mr T I’m glad you finally sorted me from Jim however I found the exact same quote that Jim quoted on the site you linked.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/maurice_strong.html
about halfway down.
” You rebutt papers. Essays… well”
An earlier “essay” was significant enough for Hans Oeschger to send in a “rebuttal” to the editor.
http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/espr/Pdf/aId/7394
It’s fairly obvious at least one scientist disagreed with you in at least one instance. There may be other cases.
Jan, all your arguments reduce to “I’m smarter, so nerr nerr nerr”
If that’s the best you have, then chatter away, but you won’t convince thinking people of anything.
You showed no evidence of FRAUD. Do you understand?
All you have is a lack of evidence of anything.
Jan, and Jim
There is a big differemce between:
“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse”
and
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
The second has the lovely “Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Just thrown in. Which makes it become something this man wants to enact.
If you think they’re the same. Fine, but don’t start telling me you found the same quote, when actually it is clearly different (one sentence vs two sentences). If you’re going to quote someone you need to get it right.
Jan,
The Jaworoski rebuttal. It was claimed that the paper Jaworoski 2004 had never had a credible rebuttal.
There is no such paper.
It doesn’t exist. There is a Jaworoski 2004 paper on cancer or something but I am assuming that is not the one you’re talking about.
There is a pdf, on the web, about CO2 levels – that’s what we’re talking about, right? This is not a paper, it hasn’t been published. Why would anyone write a rebuttal? Why would you expect it? It’d be like a lawyer trying to prosecute a case that isn’t in court. It’s pointless.
Mr T, ” Jan, all your arguments reduce to “I’m smarter, so nerr nerr nerr”
If that is what you think then kindly show us how smart you are. It’s not rocket science and IPCC have not given any indication they have actually even done that or similar calculation and not pulled just pulled the numbers out of thin air. There really isn’t grounds for such a comparison and trying to get any exposition from them or any warmer acolytes is like trying to pull hen’s teeth.
I’ve told you why I consider IPCC exaggeration of the the temperature sensitivity is the equivalent of salting ore samples.
Can you at least why it isn’t instead of just saying something that amounts to no more than “because I say so”.
You have the evidence i.e.a more realistic figure the general mathematical incoherence of the numbers the IPCC advertise and numbers that incidentally are consistent with the conclusion of the peer reviewed (since you place such great stock in it) paper by Stephen Schwartz, approached by empirical means, that has not had a rebuttal apart from chirping crickets in the blogosphere.
Jan,
how about use Google Scholar on the words “Climate Sensitivity IPCC”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JGR…10622605A
I haven’t got the whole paper, just the abstract, maybe if you’re so keen on finding evidence of fraud you can buy it and educate us.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/n6404/abs/360573a0.html
This one might give you some history, but it’s old now.
There are thousands of hits, have a look. Tell us what you find.
Jan Pompe
And this one
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5850/629
“Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?
Gerard H. Roe* and Marcia B. Baker
Uncertainties in projections of future climate change have not lessened substantially in past decades. Both models and observations yield broad probability distributions for long-term increases in global mean temperature expected from the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, with small but finite probabilities of very large increases. We show that the shape of these probability distributions is an inevitable and general consequence of the nature of the climate system, and we derive a simple analytic form for the shape that fits recent published distributions very well. We show that the breadth of the distribution and, in particular, the probability of large temperature increases are relatively insensitive to decreases in uncertainties associated with the underlying climate processes.”
Why would you imagine that your calculation is any better than any other estimation? Do you have some fantastic insight that all the climate scientists in the world lack?
Sorry mate you did a quick calculation that I am not really is quite valid and pronounce that all the climate scientists have got it wrong. A bit like the proverbial sugar cube in the ocean.
Mr T – follow the link Jan provided ( thanks Jan ) ; the quote is exactly how I first presented it.
is exactly AS I first presented it.
Don’t want Jen’s mum picking me up on my grammar again.
You’re right, Jim, I must’ve missed it.
Mr T, “I haven’t got the whole paper”
Don’t bother it’s not was is needed.
“Here we use a simple climate/ocean model”
We need a good physics based exposition. It is necessary to test the sanity of such “experiments”. The upper limit range of their conclusion is well outside the ball park but then that’s the problem with numerical solutions to partial differential equations and especially when the describe chaotic systems like he Navier-Stokes equations. There are extremely sensitive to set boundary conditions.
The second one looks saner but I’d expect that from Curt Covey. However: ” by independently reconstructing both the equilibrium surface temperature change and the radiative forcing.” leaves me wondering just how they managed to reconstruct “radiative forcing”, and how they are sure they got it right. IIRC even the 800 year CO2 lag had not yet been discovered circa 1999 by Petit et al in the Vostok ice cores.
Never mind I realised that you probably thought the remarks about your lack mathematical literacy a slur if so I apologise I could have worded it better. I do realise that not everybody is mathematically inclined but sometimes forget the range of ability in the field is very wide. I play with it for fun and my colleagues at work think I’m crazy getting out a math book instead of playing sudoku like the rest of them during the quiet times.
Regarding the exposition I seek, Steve McIntyre has been asking for at least a year that I’m aware of and many of his readers have been looking without avail. I’ve tried to do it myself and came out with the above and can get no further there is no way the numbers and it’s an empirical model can get me there. Nir Shaviv gets a similar result taking into account surface albedo but not emissivity.
Even Monckton uses the same method with similar results but how does this compare with empirical measurements.
Finally using 1990 figures i.e. empirical measures Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997 in their seminal paper calculate a total atmospheric greenhouse power retention of 185 W/m^2 for the well accepted +33K attributed to greenhouse effect it’s a simple calculation 185/33 = 5.61 W/m^2 K what was my blackbody figure? 5.42 W/m^2K so what is in the ballpark then mine or IPCC 1.23 W/m^2? {this calculated vs empirical actually indicates that atmosphere has a an emissivity of close to >1 there are bound to be errors because they used black body earth ~4% so near black body }
You can’t tell me they don’t know about the Kiehl and Trenberth paper. They used a simplified version of K&T cartoon of radiative fluxes in such a way that they hid the the 185 atmospheric radiation retention but the totals are exactly the same.
Jan, my understanding (which is limited) is that the IPCC climate sensitivity isn’t just for CO2, it includes other factors like increased H2O, CH4, and albedo changes.
This may explain why you get a lower radiative result. Perhaps they get the same but then add in the other forcings and the grand total becomes 1.5 to 4.5 c
I think I saw something on Roger Pielke Sr’s Blog about requesting the source of the IPCC sensitivity. And I think on Climate Audit, that Judith Curry from Alamba uni(?) had a go at it too… Maybe look in the Climate Audit archives.
Jim: :Mr T – follow the link Jan provided ( thanks Jan ) ; the quote is exactly how I first presented it.”
You’re welcome I’m sure Mr T must have missed it.
Mr T, ” Jan, my understanding (which is limited) is that the IPCC climate sensitivity isn’t just for CO2″
Neither is mine it’s just straight whole atmosphere actually dividing it up into components is meaningless. It’s just as valid for a block of steel, piece of styro-foam or a parcel of air. It’s empirically derived in the 19th century. It’s just the relationship between radiated energy and the bodies temperature that can be modified by the surface of the body called emissivity which is <1 for air that figure is nearly 1 but I’ve seen some state it’s as low as .7.
Its in the same class as the well established and accepted law of gravity it’s Stefan-Boltzamnn law. Note it’s a physical law that must be obeyed. Albedo doesn’t affect it only temperature and emissivity and I’ve allowed for variation in that.
I know much of the work of the people you mention they don’t have particularly different POV. You need to understand I’m NOT sceptical about a warmer world due to GHG it’s just the magnitude as quoted by the IPCC that doesn’t gel with the physics and it’s exaggerated.
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary
Fraud: “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting”
From the alarmist taking heads (Gore, Hansen, Suzuki, et. al.):
“The science is settled”
“The debate is over”
“We are close to the tipping point”
“The relationship is complicated but one thing is clear, when there is more CO2 the temperature is higher”
“If sea levels were to raise 20 feet this is what Florida would look like, and San FRancisco Bay, . . . .”
I could go on and on.
Looks like fraud to me!
Oh, and if any of you warministas want to argue that the science is fact settled then please explain this!
http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/33451
Yep, climate alarmism is a fraud!
Mark: The greatest fraud begins with business, its finance, material resources, quality control etc. Another source of global fraud is peddlers of religion, politics, health practices, and fashion. Compared to our book sellers and most other media, scientists and teachers are poorly organised.
The first issue for an individual is who do you trust?
Now I don’t bother with Andrew Bolt or The Australian except for a smile. If I want to know about the weather or a product I go to their home page or use the phone however there is nothing as good as say using a camera on the beach after you have dropped it on the beach to know what’s up with what we all do most of the time.
Life in any human operation is a fudge like astrology.
Forgetting which thread this applies to for a mo, Marks link above on carbon in emissions is hardly news to some.
In post WW2 manufacturing we gradually changed from just measuring efficiency to considering customers and our neighbourhoods however monitoring CO2 in flue gas was dropped in favour of O2 measurements. As a result carbon black largely disappeared from the effluent of large scale furnace operations. Simultaneously a similar campaign in the automotive industry cleaned up a lot of vehicle smoke and visual pollution over most western cities declined considerably.
Diesel engines were somewhat exempt from this change as pure carbon from the exhaust was not considered toxic back then.
Although it was a problem for washing hanging on the line overnight carbon in smog was not the target of our first clean air campaigns. Neither was coal dust. Fine carbon continued to go round the world under the radar.
Gavin: “Forgetting which thread this applies to for a mo, Marks link above on carbon in emissions is hardly news to some.”
Well apparently it’s news to the IPCC whose position in AR4 was substantially different.
And in terms of relevance to this thread it’s very relevant! The IPCC as Bob Carter states is clearly “on the run” as the fraud of the pseudoscience it presents as fact is exposed.
Remember that AR4 clearly states “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is VERY LIKELY due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”. (VERY LIKELY = 90%+ certainty by IPCC definition).
And as to your other comments: “Mark: The greatest fraud begins with business, its finance, material resources, quality control etc.” & “Life in any human operation is a fudge like astrology.”, christ it’s no wonder you’re a lefty envirofreak. Why don’t you get off your computer and the internet and go and live in a cave. After all, they are products of the modern industrial world that you seem so much to despise!
Departure from average for the combined planet for the last 10 years as reported by HadCRUT2v data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGdealtemj?mon1=1&monb1=1&mone1=12&bye1=1998&eye1=2007&graph=Lineplot&klu=1&dat=HADCRUT&mon2=00&bye2=00&eye2=00&mon3=00&ye=00¶m=Temperature&proce=80&puzo=0&ts=6&non=1&begX=0&begY=0&endX=71&endY=35&sbeX=0&sbeY=0&senX=71&senY=35
Parse it as you will.
Mark: After all, they are products of the modern industrial world that you seem so much to despise!
I’m wondering if he has CO2 monitors to sell.
Try this graph and trendline:
Trend Line 1870-2007
There’s a clear upward climb.
REM that theoretical properties of CO2 absorption in IR are of crucial importance; we’re not watching results in a causal vacuum.
Neil B – Can’t see any link but I can imagine what you’re trying to get at! So explain:
1) The warming up to the 1940’s when there was little increase in atmospheric CO2
2) The cooling from the mid 1940’s to the mid 1970’s (and please non of that aerosol crap!)
and after taking volcanic effects into account
3) The step-type jump in temperatures from the mid-70’s to the early-80’s.
4) The plateau in temperature since the early-80’s.
Trend Line 1870-2007
Better still try trend line 11500 BP to Present the orbital factors come into play and there is a clear .14 / millennium downward trend.
“1) The warming up to the 1940’s when there was little increase in atmospheric CO2” – SO ?? Did anyone ever say CO2 is the only influence. Typical denialist drivel
“2) The cooling from the mid 1940’s to the mid 1970’s (and please non of that aerosol crap!)” – WHY NOT?
“3) The step-type jump in temperatures from the mid-70’s to the early-80’s.” Ex-squeeze me? Crap. Says some bloke with an unpublished, hand-drawn fiddled graph.
Please try to stop hand waving and make a serious argument! From the literature make a case for the different forcings – leave CO2 out and see if it computes. BTW that’s not getting your pencil out and fiddling a temperature time series.
e.g. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png
Wasn’t asking you Luke!
“”2) The cooling from the mid 1940’s to the mid 1970’s (and please non of that aerosol crap!)” – WHY NOT?”
Because the LOSU on aerosols is very low. The latest study referenced earlier:
http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/33451
knocks the legs out from from the contrived negative forcing used by the alarmists to play up the role of CO2.
“BTW that’s not getting your pencil out and fiddling a temperature time series.”
And what do you give us? Something from globalwarming ART! It certainly ain’t science!
So butt out and Neil B. defend his own stupid statements!
No but I’m asking you.
Art? – well denialist doughboy there are serious published data behind that figure unlike your pencil etchings. All you’ve done is a runner.
Don’t bother quoting blog bilge on carbon black – we’ve been here before and the dopey denialists all denied it.