The April edition of Birmingham University’s newsletter BUZZ incudes comment from climate researcher Chris Kidd that,
“Despite these warmer temperatures and recent news of further ice-shelf melting, global temperatures do appear to be cooling after reaching a peak in 1998.
Since then the temperatures steadied and have fallen over the past couple of years: in fact, Antarctica saw its greatest recorded extent of ice in 2007, unlike the dwindling Arctic sea ice.
As for the summer, seasonal forecasting is best left to computer models to get wrong, but it would seem that we could be in for an ‘average’ summer: cool and showery.”
Let’s hope Jo Abbess, the activist who recently insisted the BBC change a story that mentioned some global cooling, doesn’t try and get this article changed!
———————–
Dr Chris Kidd is from the Climate and Atmospheric Research Group, in the School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, and he is not a climate skeptic.
At the time of writing the April Edition was not yet available online.
This Story was edited by Jennifer at 9.30am on April 10.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
What’s the bet that this never sees the light of day? Should’t have let the cat out of the bag Paul!
I’ve got a hard copy of BUZZ that I can scan!
Oh good! It’s probably a good idea to get a record of any media coverage critical to the AGW hype before it gets changed!
Its already gone.
Spineless whimps
Can somebody please point out to me where global average temperatures have fallen since 1998?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Hang on I forgot GISS and the Hadley Centre are part of the anti hummer conspiracy.
Ender, we have already shown you the data, but you refuse to see.
Ender
The raw data you supplied shows it is not warming and some could see (I do) that there is a trend toward cooling. Ender you have to understand that scientists look at raw data not averaged data because the way the data is averaged can fundamentally change what the data is saying. Averaging is a form of “spin”.
Don’t be fooled. Only ever look at the raw data and draw your own conclusions.
“Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings.” (Heinrich Heine – 1821)
Ender has not supplied any raw data – all of it has been “adjusted”.
Ender: “Can somebody please point out to me where global average temperatures have fallen since 1998?”
Ender, stop behaving like Al Gore – either hiding the truth or down right lying!
GISTEMP, hah! – C’mon everyone knows it’s a piece of crap. With Hansen running the show how could anyone pretend any aspect of objectivity here.
Showing us graphs that go to 2004 or 2005 is just more sophistry. Same with graphs in “microprint” that try and hide the details.
Why don’t you have the cojones to reference some up to date graphs that actually show the detail? Like these:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html
Even the Hadley graphs show cooling despite their best attempts to hide the reality with their latest games!
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
Hey I noticed that they’ve added a new lead graph in their standard set of graphs which reintroduces the provisional 2008 year to date average – good for them! Ender, you just might notice it’s a wee bit lower than 1998!
Mark: That graph on JunkScience clearly shows a warming of .4 C over the past couple of decades. Anyone who cant se it needs only to place a rule under MINIUM global average temp since 1983/4 to present and note this trend is still going up at a fairly constant rate.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html
What bothers me most is this incestuous blog nonsense generated by internet nobodies on the question of cooling when there is absolutely no chance global averages are descending over our lifetime.
IMO graph reading for fools should be the first lesson on your “Junk Science”
Jennifer – “Ender, we have already shown you the data, but you refuse to see.”
Much the same as you refuse to see the warming trend in all the posted graphs?
I would like to see the data you are basing your opinion on in a format that is the same as these graphs. Can you please provide that? ie:data that starts at the beginning of the data records and ends at 2007. Graphs that start at 1998 do not count.
Can you please provide the links?
Ender,
obviously the starting point is important as well as the time frame.
1. if you start 16,000 years ago and want to discuss long term trends, then i think it is reasonable to conclude that we have a general warming trend.
2. if you want to start about 500 years ago, then you might conclude there has been some cooling and now some warming.
3. if you want to start 150 years ago, then there has been mostly warming.
4. if you want to start 10 years ago, then global temperatures appear to have plateaued and may be starting to cool.
what is significant about the last 150, and last 10 years, is that while there has been a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide there has not been a significant corresponding increase in temperature.
i hope this helps.
PS didn’t provide links as I have previously, as well as posting graphs, scroll throught the climate category link. in the end there is lots of data out there which has been analysed and presented in different ways. you would be familiar with this data. what is important is that as we look at it we understand its limitations as well as what it tells us. then, if you have confidence in your own judgment, you can start to draw your own conclusions.
have fun!
John Smith – “Don’t be fooled. Only ever look at the raw data and draw your own conclusions.”
So if you had an instrument that had known and understood inaccuracies, like all measuring devices do, you are saying that scientists should only use the raw data from the instrument and not apply the corrections from the manufacturer’s test data?
In this case the raw data would be wrong and therefore the conclusions you draw from it would also be wrong.
Also would you also discontinue the practice of making hundreds of measurements and then averaging them to get a more accurate answer? I really do not think you have any idea.
Tell you what we can have an experiment. You follow the raw data from a magnetic compass and I will correct it for dip, deviation and declination and we will see who reaches the destination.
Gavin,
We look forward to your continued instruction in “IMO Graph Reading for Fools”.
I have in front of me at the moment a copy of page 64 from Newsweek dated April 28, 1975.
Under the heading “The Cooling World”, it states that: “There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth.”
It then goes into full hysteria mode about the impending doom from a reversion to the little ice age — and yes, there is a graph. It concludes with a list of potential solutions, including: melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot, and diverting arctic rivers. No mention of solving the problem with another tax – so presumably they weren’t that brainless back in 1975.
The final sentence states: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.” (Any of this sound vaguely familiar to anyone?)
I just wonder how many pre-internet nobodies back then were declaring that “there is absolutely no chance of global averages ever ascending over our lifetime!”
Jennifer wrote: “what is significant about the last 150, and last 10 years, is that while there has been a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide there has not been a significant corresponding increase in temperature.”
Jennifer, am I correct in thinking that you believe there has been no “significant corresponding increase in temperature” in the last 150 years? Or 100 years?
“Mark: That graph on JunkScience clearly shows a warming of .4 C over the past couple of decades. Anyone who cant se it needs only to place a rule under MINIUM global average temp since 1983/4 to present and note this trend is still going up at a fairly constant rate.”
Well Gavin you’re either dishonest or stupid!
The 83/84 low point is a consequence of the cooling caused by the El Chichon eruption. So if you know that then you are being dishonest. If you don’t know that then it just demonstrates your ignorance and you have no basis for comment. Oh and what is it with the second part of your ignoramus remark – look at the freaking graph! There is no warming trend post 1998. It’s cooling!
You are blind because you don’t want to see!
Jennifer – “PS didn’t provide links as I have previously, as well as posting graphs, scroll throught the climate category link”
I have strolled through it and cannot see any graphs with the same time scales as the above graphs, that use peer reviewed methodology, that show a trend of cooling. Firstly the only graphs I can see from your data start at 1998 which was an anomolous year and is the worst possibly place to start a graph from and draw any conclusions.
I would like you, the person that is all over the media saying that the world is cooling, to present the evidence in a concise form using accepted methodologies that supports the statements that you are making.
Pointing a serious request from a layperson to a scientist to a vague “scroll through my blog posts” does not cut it.
You have made statements as a scientist and I am interested in the data that you used to come to the conclusions that you have. The generally accepted starting point is around 1870 when reliable instrument records began. I am sure you can collate your data to back up your statements with a graph from 1870 to 2007 that shows this cooling you speak of. Has no-one else asked you this?
Ender
Firstly, the discussion was about averaging. But why should I expect anything less than a “Chewbacca” defence from a brainless warmer like you.
You put up graphs that clearly show there is cooling over the past year and then you say that there is none.
As for your little compass analogy….
I have been designing instrumentation for 30 years and I can tell you you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.
Dips and deviations… Lol….
But that is beside the point. You are a sucker and you will always remain a sucker. Enjoy paying your carbon tax you leftist lacky.
Ender,
i could suggest you are being disingenuous. but i will resist and instead provide you with this link http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm . the 16,000 year time frame is missing but the others should be there.
but in the end some of us make up own minds with confidence and good judgment and others seem destined to wait for their brothers, wives, mothers, or ministers to tell them what to think.
and whether we are independent thinkers or not can depend to some extent on our environment.
remember Orwell’s book 1984:
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050,
at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now? The whole climate
of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now.
Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.
peterd,
the often quoted figure of warming over the last 100 years is 0.8C.
i think if we measured from the coldest period during the recent little ice age it would be more.
we can and have easily adapted to this … fauna and flora as well.
there has however, and only over the last few decades or so been significant warming in the arctic. some argue that this has had an impact on polar bears. however, quotas on hunting have clearly had a bigger impact as numbers are generally on the increase.
hope this helps.
Ivan,
As I write, I have in front of me a book chapter titled “All Other Factors Being Constant…Theories of Global Climatic Change”. It was written by Reid Bryson, who is a well-known AGW “sceptic” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics, for example), and was originally published, with slightly different title, in Weatherwise (1968). It was reprinted in a text (T.R. DetwyIer, Man’s Impact on Environment) I used for an undergraduate environmental science unit in the 1970s. Bryson discusses the possible mechanisms by which CO2 and dust contribute to climate alteration. In the 1970s, one of the big issues of the day was whether the world was entering a warming or cooling pattern. Like many others, Bryson was aware of the temperature cooling trend from the 1940s through the 1960s and he suspected that the increase reflectivity of the earth caused by increased dustiness had caused enough cooling to override the previous warming trend. What Bryson wrote was this: “I believe that increasing global air pollution, through its effect on the reflectivity of the earth, is currently dominant and is responsible for the temperature decline of the last decade or two.” He goes on to note that the CO2 increase appeared to be due to humans, in which case “… the carbon dioxide increase and the air pollution increase might balance each other out in terms of effect on climatic change in the future.” In other words, CO2 vs aerosols is what some good scientists were thinking at the time. It was not certain in the 1970s whether cooling or warming would dominate. Over at RealClimate, you can find material indicating that a clear majority of scientific papers in the 1970s indicated warming was likely to outweigh cooling.
Ivan, how can you be sure that similar effects of offsetting aerosols and CO2 are not in play now? After all, in case you haven’t noticed, we are in the midst of what appears to be an unprecedented burst of economic activity, with coal-fired power stations sprouting up all over China. How do you know the reflectivity of the atmosphere is not also increasing, thus offsetting CO increases?
I believe Gavin’s reference to “internet nobodies” is apt. These are the people who endlessly recycle the false notion that “the people who were saying the world was heading for global cooling are the same people are now saying the earth is warming, so why should we believe them?”
Ivan: you got me wondering what we were doing back in 1975 so I looked it up cause I can’t recall any international news from that year and certainly nothing about global temperatures one way or another. Truth is was up to my neck in mud and slush everyday chasing tiny percentages of metals in the crushed up muck.
Sure we had the best of instruments including nuclear type weighers, density and mass flow systems round the plant also XRF and other assay equipment in the lab but Ph not temperature was the key to all solutions then. Apart from analysing dozens of charts every day, the best distraction was a lone F111 flying below tree top through the mist and rain, regular as clockwork right on smoko till one day the clouds descended to the valley floor. Our RAAF trainer nearly struck the mountain side before auto pilot kicked them into near vertical climb to space with both engines full throttle. The roar through the cloud mass sent shock waves underground.
Jennifer,
actually, I didn’t ask about polar bears.
Climate scientists have never claimed that climate is driven ONLY by CO2. Also, it is a non sequitur to argue that because climate change 16,000 years was driven by natural causes, therefore all climate change today, or in the future, must also be driven by natural causes. The AGW argument is essentially that natural causes (solar, volcanic….) cannot account for all the temperature change since the beginning of industrialisation.
It is also a non sequitur to argue that because humans have adapted to climate change in the past, they necessarily will in the future. There are writers who have argued that climate change has driven civilisations to ruin. I have just begun reading a book by one of those folk (Jared Diamond).
Peter D
Are you saying that things other than CO2 are “drivers” of climate?
peterd,
the 16,000 year reference was in response to ender’s comment – not your comment
i mentioned polar bears to you in the context of your use of the term ‘significant’.
and i’ve read jared diamond’s collapse – i review his chapter on australia here: http://ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=443
Jennifer you have a very opitimistic view of the ability of flora and fauna to adapt to changing climate. Why? The evidence shows that flora and fauna fair poorly with rapid changes. Look at the PETM. That’s the sort of thing we’re dealing with.
John Smith,
It’s a common misconception amongst people who don’t subscribe to AGW that CO2 is considered the only climate driver. It indicates you haven’t actually read anything scientific on it. Read any paper, the IPCC reports, any book and you will see that there are many other factors involved.
Peter D
“The AGW argument is essentially that natural causes (solar, volcanic….) cannot account for all the temperature change since the beginning of industrialisation”
The sceptics argument is essentially that natural causes (solar, volcanic….) AS CURRENTLY UNDERSTOOD cannot account for all the temperature changes PRIOR to industrialisation.
This suggests that our understanding of these is not complete and that climate senstivity to these MAY be higher than that what is CURRENTLY UNDERSTOOD.
If this holds, then this would suggest that climate sensitivity to CO2 is not as high as currently proposed and hence, the focus on CO2 mitigation is the wrong strategy.
cheers
Arnost
Arnost,
so where are all the sceptic’s climate sensitivity (to CO2) values?
Jennifer – “i could suggest you are being disingenuous. but i will resist and instead provide you with this link”
That’s it????? I see no data in this link to suggest that there is cooling trend. I cannot see how you can interpret 1 year as a trend. Do you have any evidence to make this assumption?
John Smith – “Ender – Firstly, the discussion was about averaging. But why should I expect anything less than a “Chewbacca” defence from a brainless warmer like you.”
It was?? You said that we should look at the raw data and nothing else. I did see you mentioned averaging however are you now saying that any data that is averaged is wrong?
“You put up graphs that clearly show there is cooling over the past year and then you say that there is none.”
Yes they show cooling this La Nina year however they show no cooling trend. In all the graph’s 5 year mean there are many inflexion points where there has been yearly dips and peaks. Please point me to the data that shows a clear trend of cooling.
“As for your little compass analogy….
I have been designing instrumentation for 30 years and I can tell you you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.”
So John your instruments must be in great demand if they are 100% accurate and have no errors.
“Dips and deviations… Lol….”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass#Compass_correction
Declination – If one is using ‘true’ or map bearings, and the compass does not have preset, pre-adjusted declination, one must additionally add or subtract magnetic declination to convert the magnetic bearing into a true bearing.
Deviation – At sea, a ship’s compass must also be corrected for errors, called deviation, caused by iron and steel in its structure and equipment. The ship is swung, that is rotated about a fixed point while its heading is noted by alignment with fixed points on the shore. A compass deviation card is prepared so that the navigator can convert between compass and magnetic headings.
Dip – Because the Earth’s magnetic field’s inclination and intensity vary at different latitudes, compasses are often balanced during manufacture. Most manufacturers balance their compass needles for one of five zones, ranging from zone 1, covering most of the Northern Hemisphere, to zone 5 covering Australia and the southern oceans. This balancing prevents excessive dipping of one end of the needle which can cause the compass card to stick and give false readings
Are you absolutely sure I am the one that does not know what he is talking about.
“But that is beside the point. You are a sucker and you will always remain a sucker. Enjoy paying your carbon tax you leftist lacky.”
That right real data is beside the point as you have your ideology and anything that does not conform can be insulted away – good luck with that by the way.
PS – you really should write to this person and tell him that your 100% accurate instruments make all this obsolete.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9095698
“Evaluation of instrument error and method agreement.
Chatburn RL.
University Hospitals of Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Safely operating life support equipment and evaluating new technology both require some basic understanding of measurement theory. Measurement errors fall into two main categories: systematic errors (predictable problems usually due to calibration) and random errors (unpredictable). These two types of errors can be quantified by experiments involving repeated measurements of standards or “true” values. Systematic error (called bias) is usually expressed as the mean difference between measured and true values. Random error, called imprecision, can be expressed as the standard deviation of measured values. Total error can be expressed as an error interval, being the sum of bias and some multiple of imprecision. An error interval is a prediction about the error of some proportion of future measurements (e.g., 95%) at some level of confidence (e.g., 99%) based on the variability of the sample data and the sample size. Specifically, a tolerance interval gives an estimate of the true value of some variable given repeated measurements with an assumed valid measurement system. An inaccuracy interval predicts the validity of a measurement system with an estimate of the difference between measured true values (given that a standard or true value is available for measurement). An agreement interval evaluates whether or not one measurement system (e.g., a known valid system) can be used in place of another (e.g., a new unknown system). Statistical analyses such as correlation and linear regression are commonly seen in the literature, but not usually appropriate for evaluation of new equipment. Instrument performance evaluation studies should start out with a decision about the level of allowable error. Next, experiments are designed to obtain repeated measurements of known quantities (inaccuracy studies) or of unknown quantities by two different measurement systems (i.e., agreement studies). The first step in data analysis is to generate scatter plots of the raw data for review of validity (e.g., outliers). The next step is to make sure the data adhere to the assumption of normality. The third step is to calculate basic descriptive statistics, such as the mean and standard deviation. Finally, the data should be presented in graphic form with the differences plotted against the reference values and including numerical values for the calculated error intervals. The key idea to remember is that device evaluation and method agreement studies are based on the desire to know how much trust we should place in single measurements that may be used to make life support decisions.”
Give it up Ender. Now you just look ridiculous.
Mr T
Answer the question. Is CO2 the only driver of climate?
peterd,
We would agree about the uncertainty, while we differ in how we interpret the data that we are presented with, and how we would propose to respond this data — if indeed any response is required.
If you look back over the history of climate, it is overwhelmingly dominated by two aspects: uncertainty and variability.
Your own recent note highlights this in spades:
– “…he suspected that…”
– “I believe that …”
– “…appeared to be due to…”
– “..were thinking at the time…”
– “it was not certain …”
– etc… etc.
Nothing has changed today. The IPCC AGW model asks (demands?) that we suspend disbelief and accept that we have forever moved out of an extended era of climate variability and uncertainty into an era of perpetual temperature escalation — based solely on a model and its hockey stick. Call me a skeptic if you like, but I have trouble accepting that a fundamental force of nature can change this dramatically, this quickly and this conveniently.
As if to prove this point, along comes 2007 and a La Niña event (i.e. yet more uncertainty and variability), and the whole AGW model goes wobbly. We can’t even agree whether the temperature is rising or falling — even though the WMO makes a statement about “the temporary cooling brought about by La Niña”. Who are the deniers in this instance?
The immediate “problem” we as a society are being forced to deal with has been elaborately constructed completely on the shifting sands of fear, uncertainty and doubt. The solution-du-jour seems to be: tax and punish. Another blogger earlier mentioned a figure of $20B. What he neglected to mention was, that this was $20B a year (and will grow). This equates to $1,000 every year for every man, woman and child in Australia. With no guarantee that this new “Carbon Choices” tax will even solve any “problem” – nobody can even offer a firm plan of what to do with the money collected.
Let’s say that the temperature and CO2 does continue to escalate in line with the AGW model. What then? The demands for more CO2 reduction will become even more strident – and the tax and punishment will become even more dire — i.e. begin closing coal-fired power stations and so on. Every day will become “Earth Day”, which will at least make The Age happy, if nobody else.
If, however, the temperature goes down – which current indications suggest is entirely possible, do you think they will stop taxing and punishing? No — it will become the new “Future Fund” (just in case). A $20B a year slush fund. Wow.
The AGW crowd are like the turkeys that voted for an early Christmas. You might be happy to surrender the benefits of a modern, progressive, technological society and even pay a tax for the privelege of doing so. I’m not quite so willing to put my neck in the noose.
Before I go along with this little frolic, I’d like to see some actual hard evidence that a problem exists, that we fully understand its characteristics, and that the proposed solution will provide a remedy — and that we’re not simply recycling a lot of alarmist hogwash from 30 years ago. Mob hysteria, abuse, and a lot of “beliefs” about “Emerging Truth” just doesn’t do it for me, unfortunately.
As they say in the classics: “Marry in haste, repent at leisure”.
As a cynical sceptic, climate sensitivity was, is and will always be a guess since no one has empirically determined, let alone verified, it.
Hence sceptics actually don’t have any numbers on it since we restrict our deliberations to thjose based on empirical fact, and when there are none, then none it be.
“Answer the question. Is CO2 the only driver of climate?”
He did, can’t you read English? Of course it isn’t. As he pointed out, read the IPCC reports. They consider many climate drivers.
Finally a simple answer.
So you admit that CO2 is not the only driver of climate.
So is the Sun a driver of climate?
Jennifer:
“i’ve read jared diamond’s collapse – i review his chapter on australia here: http://ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=443
Thanks. Unfortunately, I haven’t read this far in the book yet.
John Smith
No it isn’t
Why didn’t you read my first post?
Yes, the sun is. As are orbital forcings.
Try reading the material before you start assuming what is in it.
The IPCC TAR4 is a good place to start.
Adding to Ender’s post on measurements, that institutional stuff is all true enough in theory however in practice we fall back to well known points over and over as masses of data are just masses of data. Anyone who’s been in the game a while knows about reference systems, minium of three, triangulation, thresholds etc.
“The key idea to remember is that device evaluation and method agreement studies are based on the desire to know how much trust we should place in single measurements that may be used to make life support decisions.” How often have I said “find a monitoring station that you can trust then stick to it”?
This wild blog stuff can be avoided by those willing to look for themselves at official records and reports. Go back to the Junk Science Graph if you must and do my simple rule test under minimum points 1983 > 2003/ 08 to get right into what is driving climate policy in most countries now.
BTW scientific/industrial instrumentation was my bread and butter for decades. I met a chap last w/e who is currently working for NATA. This organization pioneered inter government agreements here and overseas on testing methods generally. Pity is climate science weather monitoring etc was not covered way back the same way many other labs were
John Smith:
So is the Sun a driver of climate?
Of course it is. The question is whether it is enough of a driver to explain fully recent (centennial-scale) temperature change. According to Bard and Frank (Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., v.284, pp1-14 (2006), which is a fairly recent review article on “Climate Change and Solar Variability”) the answer is probably “No”: “Overall, the role of solar activity in climate changes- such as the Quaternary glaciations and the recent global warming- remains unproven and most probably represents a second-order effect”.
gavin – “Pity is climate science weather monitoring etc was not covered way back the same way many other labs were ”
Completely agree however as usual everyone one wants better data however nobody is prepared to pay for it. I have said before rather then people frothing at the mouth at how bad the climate record is why not put that sudden enthusiasm in climate data into helping to fund a better system.
Ivan,
the “model” (as you so quaintly put it- which one?) and “the hockey stick” have never been the only cornerstones of the IPCC case. There has been direct evidence from satellites for quite a few years now of changes in the infrared radiation emitted to space at the top of the atmosphere. We know that greenhouse gases are changing things up there!
John Smith – “Give it up Ender. Now you just look ridiculous.”
Sure John I will just stop debunking every single one of your arguments just in case I start to look ridiculous.
Peterd
Just where do you position the top of the atmosphere? (In kilometres please).
peterd
“We know that greenhouse gases are changing things up there!”
Do you guys just sit around and make this stuff up on an ad-hoc basis, or are you reading from a script? Presumably this is more “Emerging Truth”?
See what is happening in the real world at: http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2008/03/12/co2-global-warming/ – where the author states that:
“As the data indicates, over the past two decades, temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models.”
Or read this one at: http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=21153&cid=39&cname=NBR
Apparently the IPCC couldn’t get their maths right on this one either (well – surprise! surprise!)
(assumes no answer as it is Greenie Policy to studiously avoid reacting to inconvenient facts).
But the lower troposphere has no behaved as believed by AGW’ers.
And Sock, horror, that single CO2 measuring outpost in the Pacific has produced data suggesting a deceleration of CO2 emissions, as measured in the atmosphere.
This is to be expected after some years of temperature stasis or even cooling, but I had not reckoned on seeing on this short time-scale.
Sits back and waits for the ninnies to comment.
And I noticed I have a grammatical lispth – Sock, or thwubgger, itsth Sthock!
Ivan
In addition you might look at the position of the Langmuir Sheath, (AKA a plasma double layer) at this postion.
The earth Langmuir Sheath is not incorporated into any climate model.
The latest Hissink File is on Henry
http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=5113
And apologies for grammar and spelling. At least I don’t get the science wrong.
One big question folks:
why didn’t the climate “experts” predict the La Nina thing ?
Careful Louis … with a link like that you need to post a suitable content warning — something like the following –
CAUTION: this link leads to FACTS (n. Things certainly known to have occurred or be true, datum of experience – often with explanatory clause or phrase). AGW bigots are advised not to enter unless accompanied by a child or other person capable of independent thought.
Ivan
Of course, Facts are health er, er, inappropriate.
Louis,
Of course. Facts are like kryptonite to the AGW bunch.
There is a third piece of information that you should add to your web page, and that is a report by David Archibald at http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf In it he examines the implications of the continuing delay to the start of Solar Cycle 24, analyses a lot of historical data, and makes some predictions as to possible long-term climate consequences. (Geez – does this sound like the IPCC talking?)
The headline graph is this one: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ARCHIBALD_TEMPS.jpg which indicates that the ‘worst-case’ temperature decline could be as steep as that of the 1970s cooling scare. In the right circumstances, it could go on for longer, leading to a repeat of the Dalton Minimum or worse.
Based on this, I want to get in early and claim the Naming Rights.
My proposal is that it be named:
=>The Gore-Hansen-Garnaut (or G-H-G) Minimum<=
One way or another, the “Three Climate Amigos” of the 21st century deserve to have their ‘contribution’ recognised.
Louis – “And apologies for grammar and spelling. At least I don’t get the science wrong.”
Nope you, as usual, got the science wrong as well. Actually its not so much you got it wrong. You just seem to have your own science that you believe is correct. Sad really!!!
BTW do you actually think that there is only one station measuring CO2?
Ivan: that icecap curve is crap and you well know it I hope.
Now here is a guy who doesn’t need a blog or a network of links for citations
http://nsidc.org/research/bios/scambos.html
“25 March 2008
Antarctic Ice Shelf Disintegration Underscores a Warming World”
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html
gavin,
You can’t keep referencing IPCC hacks masquerading as scientists as ‘proof’ — this is akin to ‘drinking your own urine’.
You might be interested in this item on the NASA GISS website, where they arrived at similar conclusions about the Little Ice Age back in 2001 – back in the days when science still mattered.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/
Not quite sure how this item has survived at the “House of Hansen” — especially since the IPCC has used their hacks over at RealClimate to ‘prove’ that the Little Ice Age never existed:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=33
If it could happen during the 1600s it could happen again. If we want crap, we need look no further than the IPCC or RealClimate websites. Truckloads of it.
Ivan, did you read David Archibald’s sunspot cycle prediction? he was saying solar min wouldn’t happen until 2009… Would appear we are at solar min now… So it’s only about a year our.
He’s got the Medieval Warm Period as 2 c warmer!!! That’s fantastic! Wow, and ice free norther hemisphere in summer. Boy that was some warm period.
Then if his next figure (Holocene Optimum) suddenly the Medieval Warm period cools to less than the contemporary warm period, and the Roman Warm period is suddenly toasty warm.
I’m surprised he hasn’t had this high quality anaylsis published…
Ender
That is the station everyone refers to in this debate, so when it becomes inconvenient for you, you then ignore it and latch onto other sites which support your AGW hypothesis.
Ivan,
Thanks for that link to David Archibald’s at Warwick’s site.
Henry Thornton wants me to write up an economist friendly article on the electric universe which would include that topic though as everyone still assumes the sun to be powered by nuclear fusion, despite the blatant observational and measured contradictions, it appears harder than ever to write it within the constraints of a HT article.
Put simply, the standard model of the sun is wrong, and if that is so, then it’s affect on the earth’s climate becomes most profound, so much so that it simply invalidates most of what we think drives the earth’s climate.
This should not bother the AGW brigade too much as they practice “virtual science” within the limitations of their highly imperfect computer modelling.
I suppose what is causing angst is the slowing down of CO2 content as measured at Mauno Loa, and this measurement seems to verify the geological conclusion that temperature drives CO2. As we have had about 8 years of temperature stasis or cooling, and if I recall accurately that CO2 lags by about 5 years, then that seems to fit the measurements.
But the real goal of AGW is not to curb our CO2 use but to depopulate the planet to some arbitary base number.
I recall having a bit of a shock discussing environmental matters with some WA govt. EPA types 8 or 9 years ago when they reckoned there world was overpopulated, and were pleased that I agreed with them, (me being politically sensible at the time).
Sometimes I suspect Ender and his mates hope that modern industrial civilisation will collapse and they will then inherit the planet without us nasty, brutish capitalists.
Thanks – this is a perfect example of IPCC/AGW “science”.
1. “…Would appear we are at solar min now..”. Don’t wait for the facts – make some up. Use these to misinterpret what is presented.
2. “He’s got the Medieval Warm Period as 2 c warmer”. Deny the existence of something, and then criticse your opponent for not being precise.
3. “I’m surprised he hasn’t had this high quality anaylsis published”. When all else fails, launch into personal abuse.
Straight out page 2 of the Al Gore Little Red Book of “How to deal with Climate Sceptics” (page 1 being “steer clear of anything that looks like a fact”)
An animation on the BBC story alteration is available here.
BBC before and after
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/bbc-before-and-after/
To stop the animation press the “Esc” key; to restart it press the “F5” key.
The original story which the Ministry Of Truth doesn’t want you to see is still available via Yahoo Cache but make a copy quickly before it times out like copies in Google and Live.
Global warming ‘dips this year’
http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22Global+warming+%27dips+this+year%27%22&fr=ush-news&u=reddit.com/goto%3Frss%3Dtrue%26id%3Dt3_6ellk&w=%22global+warming+dips+this+year%22&d=Nxe2VvH_QkkL&icp=1&.intl=us
Mr. T is wrong. There is no solar minimum, not yet. Still waiting for that. Be patient, cabron.
Louis,
I worry that may be right – the Deep Green loonies seem to be driven by this ideology, no doubt about that.
I was watching a news item on TV the other night where so-called War Veterans in Zimbabwe were “repossessing” a farm from a residual white farmer. At the end of it, we saw them picking up the chairs and stuff and walking off with it all. I commented at the time – “that’s what it’ll be like here once Ross Garnaut manages to completely wreck our economy on behalf of the loonies urging him on.”
If you’re correct and this is the motivation, then these adherents need to realise a very important fact: they will be in the second wave to get the chop — just like in the Russian Revolution, and the French Revolution before that. They always get rid of the thinkers first, and the people incapable of independent though second. It’s dangerous to have a lot of sheep milling around, especially once they realise that everything didn’t turn out quite as rosy as they were promised.
Louis – “That is the station everyone refers to in this debate, so when it becomes inconvenient for you, you then ignore it and latch onto other sites which support your AGW hypothesis.”
Actually real scientists, you know the ones that actually produce science, don’t like to rely on a single source so they established a whole monitoring network for CO2.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.htm
I think you must have real problems as you were reminded of this only in this post
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002789.html
from feb 25. Are we having STM problems now?
Miguel and Ivan #1
Re: Solar Minimum
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
Can’t get much lower than zero… I think zero represents a minimum. So for David to be right we would need to hover at 0 for the next year. Or do you think we can go negative? Not going to happen.
Despite what is being said around the blogs, there’s nothing unusual about the end of cycle 23.
Here’s the original NOAA prediction: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html
More info: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm?list53494
Ivan – #2, he has two different values for the medieval warm period. Which is right? Not criticizing him for being imprecise, but being inconsistent. Also two degrees is quite substantial. The features you’d see (no summer polar ice for example) at +2 weren’t documented… so… Why does he think he’s right?
Ivan – #3
Not abuse. Unless you think he’d find it offensive. If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to publish it. Simple statement of fact.
Ender
everyone uses Mauno Loa as the CO2 BENCHMARK, so what’s the beef? Couldn’t be an inconvenient truth type of thing is it?
As for that feb 25 post linked above, I don’t recall it, so it can’t have been all that important but I suppose you will fill me in with all the gory details in any case.
(Gawd 25 Feb – where was I? Kambalda I suspect, camping out on a drilling program).
Louis – “everyone uses Mauno Loa as the CO2 BENCHMARK, so what’s the beef? Couldn’t be an inconvenient truth type of thing is it?”
No it is your unshaking ignorance that EVERYONE means actual scientists. There is a whole entire program to monitor CO2 not just one station.
However if it suits you to cherry pick one location then so be it.
MR T,
Your interpretation of Solar Minimum is not quite right.
Simplistically: from one cycle to the next the sun “flips” polarity – and the sunspots (which are magnetic dipoles) have a different polarity to those of the previous cycle. As such they can be easily identified – and we know that the appearance of both old and new cycle sunspots overlaps. Under the most common definition (there are others) solar minimum occurs when the smoothed old and new cycle sunspots are equal. This usually occurs some 9, to as much as 18 months after the appearance of the first new cycle sunspot.
We still have a relatively large old cycle sunspots appearing – and with the exception of one very small new cycle spot four months ago – nothing from the new cycle. Not even plage areas of new cycle polarity.
The original March 2008 prediction is well and truly busted – and it’s getting changed on a monthly basis:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/solar-cycle-23-forecasts-the-movie/
This year is already 1/4 over, so mid 2008 is the earliest possible assuming we started seeing A LOT of new cycle spots very soon. Late 2008 to early 2009 isn’t a bad bet. Late 2009 is not beyond the realms of possibility.
cheers
Arnost
Ender
My unshaking ignorance – well as you are quite expert in that, I suppose you must be right.
Arnost,
From the SOHO website:
Solar Minimum
The month(s) during the solar cycle when the number sunspots is lowest. The most recent minimum occurred in 1996.
Where do you get your definition?
Yes, you get both sunspots happening for quite sometime, but the minimum is when there is a minimum number of sunspots… Which by the NOAA table looks like it probably happened in January. Although it could reduce to 0 again, it’s unlikely the 0 level will be maintained until the end of the year.
You do realise that cycle 24 has already started so those people who keep saying “Cycle 23 just won’t end” are actually wrong, don’t you?
Just because you don’t think the first sunspot cycle 24 was too small doesn’t mean that the cycle hasn’t started.
“No it is your unshaking ignorance that EVERYONE means actual scientists. There is a whole entire program to monitor CO2 not just one station.”
He’s been told a hundred times about our Cape Grimm. Telling him a hundred and one times won’t make any difference.
SJT
Perhaps you might explain why Cape Grimm is rarely quoted when some one wants to point to the global increase in atmospheric CO2 – almost every graph or plot seem use Mauno Loa as the benchmark.
All rather grim, really.
Mr T,
Solar minimum is usually a specific month – not month(s).
To clear up some of the confusion:
1) when the first good size mid-latitude new-polarity spots appear, the new cycle has started.
2) at that time the old cycle is still petering out.
3) the two cycles co-exist for about a year or longer.
4) the ‘minimum’ is a human-made artifact. Various definitions can be made
with equal justification, e.g.
a) minimum in ‘smoothed’ total sunspot number
b) equal number of old and new spots
c) the corona is the flattest
d) ‘sector structure’ disappears for a few rotations in the
interplanetary magnetic field
e) when the non-polar coronal holes are gone
f) cosmic rays are at their maximum
f) and a lot other definitions…
The most common ones used are a) and b) – this way you get the “month” of solar minimum. Here’s David Hathaway:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/28mar_oldcycle.htm
N.B. esp the last paragraph.
Leif Svalgaard (from whom I got the above definitions) tends to favour the time when the corona is flattest c). See also on this:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/pickoftheweek/old/05oct2007/
This is the current animation of the corona:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/current_c2small.gif
The animation also captures a lovely CME (coronal mass emission). As there has been significant old cycle activity, the corona ain’t flat and the CME is equatorial – this tells me that the MONTH of solar minimum is still some time away.
cheers
Arnost
Arnost, yes I had heard of the coronal definition (I remember the Oct headline on the SOHO website)
I have never heard of the ‘equal number’ system. I think you may be misunderstanding what he wrote. He says we won’t be “through” solar minimum until there are more cycle 24 than cycle 23 spots. That doesn’t sound like solar minimum happens when the smoothed numbers are equal.
We also won’t know until 6 or so months after the event.
Mr T:
From the SOHO website:
Solar Minimum
The month(s) during the solar cycle when the number sunspots is lowest. The most recent minimum occurred in 1996.
If the most recent minimum was in 1996 it sure wasn’t in January 2008 as you claim. There are still numbers of Cycle 23 sunspots occurring and only the one small cycle 24 spot so far. Still bumping along the bottom. The minimum is usually properly identified 12 to 18 months after it has happened.
Nobody tell Louis that Cape Grim is just out of blog range.
Thanks.
Eyrie, yes
It is my opinion the min probably happened in Jan, but if you read my post just above yours I note that we won’t know until about 6 months after the event.
Why would a min in 1996 discount a min in 2008? They are typically 11 years apart.
At solar min you still get spots from the previous cycle. Did you read anything I or Arnost linked to? They give good accounts of the solar min.
Oh this is all rather Grimm, isn’t it, but try to find some easily locatable data from Cape Grimm, and it is difficult.
Perhaps why grim that is, Cape Grimm isn’t relied on for AGW hysteria. Perhaps the data is showing and even greater reduction in atmospheric CO2 than that small blip in the Pacific Ocean.
Very grim indeed for the AGW crowd, to be sure.
Mr T – see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum
Let’s make this clear. The length of a solar cycle is measured from minimum to minimum. The current solar cycle (SC23) is “officially” deemed to have begun in May 1996, and the previous solar cycle (SC22) is “officially” deemed to have ended in May 1996 – however the first regions of current cycle (SC23) polarity appeared in May 1995.
In the same way, the first sunspots of Cycle 20 were seen 13 months prior to solar minimum; for Cycle 21 it was 19 months; and for Cycle 22 the first spots occurred 18 months before minimum.
We’ve had the first spot in January – if the transition occurs in 12 months, then indeed you may be right about the month, but not the year.
You are of course entitled to your opinion – but with all due respect, IMHO you are wrong. Me thinks that: “those people who keep saying “Cycle 23 just won’t end” ” are quite right.
cheers
Ender, scientists dont “produce science” – unless it is the so called church of scient*ology (*dont want to attract undue llitigious activity)
Internet nobodies, like gavin, might be attracted to the church of science.
All just so much atheistic denialism.
“Perhaps you might explain why Cape Grimm is rarely quoted when some one wants to point to the global increase in atmospheric CO2 – almost every graph or plot seem use Mauno Loa as the benchmark.
All rather grim, really.”
Gavin has supplied you with the answer. In the real world, however, it’s all rather boring. Cape Grim agrees with ML. Surprise, surprise.
The energy radiated from the Sun varies as the fourth power of it’s temperature.This is 5000 raised to the power 4. Do those people who say the Sun is not the main influence in Global Warming have figures showing minute variation in this huge number Over the last 100 years? Are the el Nino la Nina events ignored because they are not understood They are the best factor for predicting weather.
SJT
Oh really Gavin has??????
Where, please as I seem not find it.
Jennifer quoted a certain Chris Kidd who appears to be a senior lecturer at Birmingham University.
This is what he allegedly said:
“Despite these warmer temperatures and recent news of further ice-shelf melting, global temperatures do appear to be cooling after reaching a peak in 1998.”
And this is what the World Meteorological organisation info note, dated 4th April, said:
“The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing. Global temperatures in 2008 are expected to be above the long-term average. The decade from 1998 to 2007 has been the warmest on record, and the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C since the beginning of the 20th Century. […] “For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time. The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming,” World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General, Mr Michel Jarraud said in response to media inquiries on current temperature “anomalies”.
“La Niña modulates climate variability. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change in the present context is that the trend is still upwards; the global climate on an average is warming despite the temporary cooling brought about by La Niña.”
And here is a quote from the summary of a NASA-report:
“The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the “El Niño of the century”. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.”
Louis Hissink:
“that single CO2 measuring outpost in the Pacific has produced data suggesting a deceleration of CO2 emissions, as measured in the atmosphere.”
“A deceleration”? You mean a decrease in the rate of increase? As happened in the early 1990s with Mauna Loa data? But not an absolute decrease? Such variations are usually related to annual variations in the oceanic and terrestrial carbon sinks.
Ivan: what’s the point that you are trying to make about the NASA/Shindell et al. paper? The paper appears to show that solar effects were appreciable for determining the LIA (as we might expect) but much less important for the recent run-up of temperature than are effect due to GHGs. This is just what I suggested to you.
Joe de V. says: “Do those people who say the Sun is not the main influence in Global Warming have figures showing minute variation in this huge number Over the last 100 years?”
What they argue is that the solar irradiance variations (which are only directly measured during the satellite era, from ca.1979) are not large enough to explain the observed surface temperature trend. The maximum peak-to-peak solar irradiance variation is approx. 0.2 W/m^2. The greenhouse-gas (GHG) forcing over the same period is somewhat larger. So, UNLESS one wishes to maintain that climate sensitivity to solar forcing is much greater than to forcing by GHGs (an assertion which raise its own set of issues), then one is forced to conclude that solar forcing accounts for less than 50% of the late 20th century change. Climate scientists do not, of course, deny a major, determining influence by the sun in earlier epochs.
Louis Hissink: there have been a variety of satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) since the 1970s. They measure the radiation going out to space so your question as to the “position [of] the top of the atmosphere [TOA]…in km…)” is slightly misconceived. The measurements began with the IRIS on Nimbus 4 in 1970. See Hanel et al., Appl. Optics, v.10(6),p.1376 (1971). According to Harries, who surveyed satellite data from 1970 through 1997: “Using IRIS and IMG, we have observed global and regional change of OLR(nu) between 1970 and 1997 which is consistent with increased concentrations of CO2, on average a higher surface temperature, and increased concentration of CH4.” (J.E. Harries, ‘The Impact of Satellite Observations of the Earth’s Spectrum on Climate Research’ in Meteorology at the Millennium (Academic Pr., 2002).
A measurement of a reduction in OLR to space, at the characteristic frequencies of emission of GHG molecules (CO2, methane, water) is direct physical evidence for a “greenhouse effect”. The influence of increased carbon dioxide on atmospheric temperatures is to cool the stratosphere [thus reducing the OLR] and mesosphere and to warm the lower atmosphere and the surface. (Houghton, The Physics of Atmospheres.)
Ivan, I wrote: “There has been direct evidence from satellites for quite a few years now of changes in the infrared radiation emitted to space at the top of the atmosphere” [TOA].
You have twisted this to make it appear that I was making a claim about temperature changes in the troposphere. I made no such claim; perhaps the issues of changes in OLR and temperature changes are confused in your own mind. Be that as it may, and as you have referred to upper-atmosphere temperature trends, I refer you to the paper by Vinnikov et al., J. Geophys. Res., v.111, D030106 (2006). From the abstract: “The observations [of temperature trends] at the surface and in the troposphere are consistent with climate model simulations. At middle and high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, the zonally averaged temperature at the surface increased faster than in the troposphere while at low latitudes of both hemispheres the temperature increased more slowly at the surface than in the troposphere.” So, how do you reconcile that with Lindzen’s claim in the link you provided? In fact, Lindzen’s data seem to conflate trends for the stratosphere (where cooling is expected) with those for the lower atmosphere (where warming is expected). It is far from clear to me how Lindzen explains the actual changes in TOA OLR, and reconciles these with what happens lower down. If the stratosphere cools, and the lower atmosphere warms, in response to increased GHGs, then somewhere in between the atmosphere must neither warm nor cool.