LAST month, a regular reader of this blog, Michael Duffy, witnessed something shocking:
“Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW [in Sydney, Australia]. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply.
As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: “We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]”.
Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there’s been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure, interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear.
So it’s disturbing that Rajendra Pachauri’s presentation was so erroneous, and would have misled everyone in the audience unaware of the real situation. This was particularly so because he was giving the talk on the occasion of receiving an honorary science degree from the university.”
Read more here.
Michael Duffy is a writer and author who used to play in rock bands. He now hosts ‘Counterpoint’ on Australia’s ABC Radio National every Monday afternoon which can be heard worldwide on the internet.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
To cap it all off, Pachauri also signed off on the Indian Government’s analysis which concluded the exact opposite.
In the early days of AGW it was admitted by the Canadian Environment minister at the time, that despite the science being wrong, AGW was all about wealth redistribution.
Pachauri is an unabashed socialist and his public utterances on AGW compatible with his world view.
When the only thing left is lies, you know we are in trouble.
Typo Jen – misleds/misleads
Pachauri should get his story straight. He said this in January:
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century. “One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents,” he told Reuters, adding “are there natural factors compensating?” for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/01/ipcc-chairman-tries-to-explain-global-non-warming/
May I suggest you actually watch the program. There were two stories on Global Warming.
First there was a story on the 3 scientists
PROF. ANN HENDERSON-SELLERS, MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY: A lot of people like myself, and I believe many, many scientists now, who are frantically, hysterically worried.
PROF, DAVE GRIGGS, MONASH UNIVERSITY: Another one of these facts comes in that catches even you unawares and you think, “Oh shit! Not another one! I wasn’t expecting that.”
PROF. DAVID KAROLY, MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY: The only way that I could see the climate system in 50 years time or 100 years time being cooler than at present is if the earth got hit by an asteroid and basically human civilisation was destroyed.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2399646.htm
Followed by the interview with the IPCC head.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2399649.htm
The full video of the IPCC Chair’s speech can be viewed at http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/wallacewurth.html the graphs and statements referred to by Michael are at about 16 minutes to 18 minutes.
alternatively the completed power point slide can be found at http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/global-temperature.html
Clearly the IPCC considers that the temprature record for the last decade does not constitute a trend worth mentioning to our University students, only that they are the highest on record, no wonder Climate Change Minister made a similar claim in luanching the Carbon Pollution paper.
Welcome to the ruthlessly hedgemonic empire of Bull$hitistan.
What a denialist Duffy is – what Pachauri said is precisely correct.
Desperate stuff by the ABC’s resident climate whinger.
And golly gee the temperature for October has started to climb again – it’s global warming coming back. ROTFLMAO !!
When I linked to the Hadley Centre I was surprised to see that there were no entries for 2008 at all. There was the infamous January prediction that this year would be one of the hottest, but no updates since then. This was not the case last year when monthly data was posted about 6 after month end.
So am I just linking to the wrong section or are they really trying to prevent the publication of inconvenient data?
And tell us, boy wanker, where did our “jungle bunny” mate from the IPCC get his temperature data that still shows a rising trend?
Paul, much thanks for pointing out the typo – now fixed.
Biffo bully – what he said was precisely correct. Only denialists would misrepresent it.
Hey – shouldn’t you been down at Goolwa in a public fracas or was that all talk?
Incidentally have you noted that Melbourne has just had its driest Sep-Oct on record.
October was 14.2mm – lowest on record was 7.5mm 1914.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/local/local.jsp?lt=aploc&lc=5594&cuc=86071&rc=86071&fc=9477&clc=86071&clrm=1
As we have seen from the recent “GreenCarbon” debacle at ANU, it is not just governments who are calling the shots on scientists through funding arrangements. Research into carbon issues is now being directly funded by environmental organisations.
In all of this discussion it is worth going back to a fundamental question: the difficulty, if not impossibility of measureing the earth’s temperature, and knowing whether it is actually cooling or warming compared with the earth’s temperature 100 or 200 years ago. I have never seen this issue satisfactorilly resolved.
luke; you are being disingenuous and the UN guy is either ignorant or lying;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/temperature-trends-and-carbon-dioxide-a-note-from-cohenite/#comments
The October increase does not alter the downward trend since 1998. Now, in fairness to eli I think you should be out scouting around for that elusive increasing SH; that would be a fingerprint and would spare Pachauri from any more fibbing.
Let me guess what the Duffster is up to….Pachauri presents a graph with temperature trend-repeat trend-using a running mean, showing a rising trend over the last hundred years, with an increased pitch over the last thirty; standard graphic support for his argument. Facts. The Duffer, being statistically challenged,gets hung up about year to year variation, the kind of facts that he prefers. But a year or tens weather,however ‘factual’, is not the climate or a climatic trend that Pachauri is talking about,as Duffy bloody well should know by now…Michael, this is getting tedious. Remember, the facts you chose are a subset of the facts that build Pachauri’s graphic.
We’ve got to stop being shocked by this sort of thing. Because we know now that it really is science fraud and that its supporters lie all the time. So thats what they do. So if one of them comes to Australia, well we expect the lying to pause only when the cocktail drinkers are actually drinking their cocktails or if their mouths are closed for other reasons.
Nick: ‘Pachauri presents a graph with temperature trend-repeat trend-using a running mean, showing a rising trend over the last hundred years, with an increased pitch over the last thirty;’ No he doesn’t – look at the video. He overlays another trend line for more recent years, starting at the depth of the 60-70s cooling, which of course has a steeper gradient, and then argues it is “much faster”. In so doing he is simply repating a trick used in SPM AR4. When it appeared in the first draft even the Chinese Government protested, saying ‘These two linear rates should not compare with each other because the time scales are not the same’ but of course it stayed in. The whole tawdry trick is discussed here http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2056
What Pachauri said was precisely correct – only cherry plucking denialists would misrepresent it. Note most of the usual temperature trend measures discussed here do not include the Arctic and gee what’s it been doing. Face it you guys couldn’t lay straight in bed.
Quoting Cohenite as source is laughable.
That was Sept-Oct not Oct !!!!
Bird talks about statistics but reveals himself to be an arts student.
This is no statistical trick, Laszlo. 40+ years of data will give a real signal. You can’t argue in favour of Duffy’s disingenuity based on data since 2002,then condemn Pachauri. Duffy’s major sin is to blithely compare apples with oranges, then accuse Pachauri of error and an intent to mislead. All in his best butter-wouldn’t-melt tone. It’s way past boring.
Still not a scrap of substance from boy wanker.
I predicted some time ago on this blog that as actual temperatures become less consistent with the Climate Cretinist Creed they will resort to longer and longer moving averages to hide reality. So back in 1999 it was 5 year moving means so they could maximise the extrapolation from the El Nino but by 2002 they had shifted to 11 year means so all records after 1998 were smoothed by the earlier numbers.
And now as the entire decade shows a plateau and decline we can be sure that they will shift to a 30 year moving mean so the trend line will continue to stop near the 1998 peak with no sign of plateau, let alone decline.
Hey Luke – where’s your reply to my proving your record October rainfall figures for Melbourne to be bullshit!
I always quote myself, it lends polish to my conversation; AGW supporters are still lanquishing after the demise of their great white hope, Santer, and his THS, disappeared down the black hole of Schmidt’s ego; it is beyond question that temperature trends over the 20THC are almost entirely due to ENSO;
http:meteora.ucsd.edu/papers/auad/Global_Warm_ENSO.pdf
Bob Tisdale has done some sterling work on this, as even NT appeared to acknowledge, although I guess he’ll recant that;
http:bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/04is-there-cumulative-enso-climate.html
Bob has found a lag between changes of ENSO phases (ie PDO) which are in accord with the approxiamately 3 month lag found by Trenbarth. To top it off Roy Spencer’s new paper in search of a publisher is showing the same ENSO release and recapture of energy to produce temperature trends;
http:wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/new-paper-from-roy-spencer-pdo-and-clouds/#more-3721
The point about this current IPCC travesty, is that even if it were true, it would still be less than the forcing value IPCC has attributed to CO2. There is not an ounce of truth, consistency or logic in the whole ediface of AGW; which I guess is why its upporters have to resort to the usual ad homs. Now, where is that SH eli is looking for?
“it is beyond question that temperature trends over the 20THC are almost entirely due to ENSO;”
“Bob Tisdale has done some sterling work on this,” unpublished blog stew again
And (giggle) Spencer’s rejected paper ….
And now says the unpublished Cohenite. “trust me”
hahahahahahahahaha- oooo it hurts …
ENSO builds heat content ….
I therefore pronounce it so it’s true ….. pffftttt LOL Ah yes – the dangerous rocks of spurious correlation. Sigh ….
Jana-banana – read what I said. Sept-Oct numb nutties.
You guys crack me up ….
Nick: ‘This is no statistical trick, Laszlo. 40+ years of data will give a real signal. You can’t argue in favour of Duffy’s disingenuity based on data since 2002,then condemn Pachauri. Duffy’s major sin is to blithely compare apples with oranges, then accuse Pachauri of error and an intent to mislead. All in his best butter-wouldn’t-melt tone. It’s way past boring.’
You have not responded to anything in my post. OK if 30-40 years data anchored in about 1970 will give a real signal, then what about 30-40 years prior to that? Bingo you get global cooling. So which is it Nick: warming or cooling? The point is the one made by the Chinese, about overlaying a shorter term trend on a longer term trend and then claiming one says something about the other in order to support your polemic. It’s about Cherry Picking 101. You seem to be a complete denialist.
And Michael Duffy actually said: ‘For most of the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there’s been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure, interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear.’ What do you dispute about this?
And Luke: ‘What Pachauri said was precisely correct”. Woohaa! WTF?
(and go pluck some cherries about what the Arctic is doing right now)
Sep-Oct Melbourne received 26mm of rainfall in total, well below the previous Sep-
Oct record of 35mm, and significantly below the mean of 124 mm.
Frankly, it has been a shockingly dry spring, as well as the third dry spring in as many years. Add that to persistantly dry autumns over the past 12 years and it doesnt make a nice picture.
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20081031.shtml
and info in the earlier special climate statement:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs16.pdf
No sense from luke tonight; the turnip leaves have taken hold; for those still with possession of their facilities “ENSO” does not build heat content; it is a product of heat release or recirculation/storage/mitigation; the McLean and Quirk paper, Tsonis, Swanson and Kravtsov, Zhang and McPhaden, Guildersen and Schrag, Myers, Wiijfels and Pigot, have all noted the Great Pacific Climate Shift (GPCS) in 1976 and its cause/effect, the massive partial cessation of deep water upwelling, and the shoaling of the thermocline in the Indian and Pacific oceans; coinciding with this was the pronounced step-up in world temperatures; this ‘step-up’, which luke the nong flitters at like a bureaucrat trying to take responsibility, is entirely responsible for the upward temperature trend post 1976; these are indisputable facts. The lack of replacement of warm sea surface water with the colder deep water allowed the SST to be maintained with indisputable effects on NINO3.4 SST anomalies which in turn maintained the upward temperature trend caused by the initial ‘step-up’ in ’76;
http:i38.tinypic.com/16aa03o.jpg (// excluded)
The partial cessation of upwelling ceased in 1998, after the super El Nino of that year and temperature has been trending down ever since. There is more factual evidence in these phenomena than in any of the failed theories and GCM evidence of AGW but obfuscators like Pachauri and his disciples aren’t interested in facts. What happened to you luke; at least at one stage you use to mount some argument. I guess with Obama in and even the Australian publishing “Climate Change and water” lift-outs there is no further need to pretend that an argument needs to be mounted.
On the question did Pachauri “cherry pick” or otherwiae mislead? Per the powerpoint, yes, he did. What he is showing is a slightly modified log2 differencing graph. The world data back for 200 years is very sparse, and using 150 rather than 200 is understandable. Not showing the 12.5, 6.3, 3.1, 1.5 trends is not. Of course by doing the trend the correct way, it would show how important the current cooling trend is. It would also show the unlikelihood that the warming trend will be reversed. But that would require a commodity that seems to be very expensive in the Climate Change Wars, an honest, open discussion. This is a great slide for a salesman in certain fields. In the stock market, it would mean prison time. Several of our local celebrities ran afoul of this. One is serving time and another is fighting for his freedom in the courts. I find it the most damning statement of all, that we hold people accountable for advice, and the powerpoint presentations they used for persons making as little as $50 investments, but do not hold people to good accounting who are not just asking, but demanding, we spend trillions. Truly a more damning statement would be difficult to make. $50 may not even effect that one person, yet the trillions will effect us all.
Pachauri presents the global average surface temperature without mentioning the warm bias/unresolved issues.
There is a pretty comprehensive look at the issues, including global, here:
http://climatesci.org/2008/08/11/guest-weblog-a-comment-on-the-report-unified-synthesis-product-global-climate-change-in-the-united-states-by-joseph-d-aleo/
Another inconvenient scientific observation, shown in this graph, is that the Arctic sea ice extent yesterday was greater than on each of the last six years on that date.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
Hey Luke,
I know from reading your comments on this blog that you’re not inherently stupid, so why can’t you see that that the observable climate is not behaving as the computer models predicted?
I’ve looked into the AGW claims for some time now and without the computer models there is no case to answer. The climate now looks as though it’s going to go through one of its cooling periods driven by Pacific entering a cold phase. And new evidence and theory is coming to light that the Sun plays a much bigger role in our climate than was previously thought.
I for one don’t believe that mankind can compete with the enormous forces that our planet, the Sun and the cosmos exact – sure, mankind screws up the local environment and we need to do something about that as well as using the planet’s resources in a fair and equitable way.
However, extreme environmentalism has killed 100’s of thousands of the World’s poorest with bans of DDT, biofuels driving up food costs and blocking the drive to provide the third world poor with basic energy
Once the media realise that they’ve backed a scam in propogating the CO2 scare the AGW pack of cards will come tumbling down.
The World needs to focus on solving real problems not ones based on unproven computer models and corrupted research supported by opportunist politicians and unaccountable quangos
Of course, even more damning is Pachauri’s position on India. You can find a good discussion at http://wattsupwiththat.com. Apparently only certain CO2 or as someone one this blog has pointed out, certain bovine flatulence count.
Two quotes that are worth bearing in mind:
1. Lord Keynes, the economist: “When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you so Sir”
2. Ronald Reagan to administrators wanting to unleash initiatives to justify their existence (IPCC anyone?): “Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There”
So Luke et al: present me with facts that show that CO2 causes discernable, harmful warming and I’ll change my mind Sir! Until then, I’ll adopt the scientific method and remain sceptical of claims and so called theories that can’t be tested and verified.
Woo hoo – look at Cohenite trying to talk up the fabrication of term that doesn’t exist in the literature.
“Great Pacific Climate Shift ” – a formal term in caps eh ? – GPCS is a product of the blogosphere unless you want to count E&E as source. LOL
More nonsense like Cohenite’s putrifyingly dishonest 10 worst lists while simultaneously being totally indulgent with stuff like Miskolczi. Just more astroturfing trying to build a credibility base that doesn’t wash with the serious science community.
Bickers – whatever is happening these guys are not onto it and the sickening partial misrepresentations of the situation continue. The sweet stench of sophistry pervades the night air.
Bickers – try the PETM.
Have a look at http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes This clearly shows what has happened with temperature over the last 30 years. If you want trend lines, it also shows you can pick your trend line according to your point of view. Irrefutable data there shows there is a recent dramatic fall of about 0.3. I look at this every week or so hoping it turns since I understand hotter is better.
My experience is most of the young are swayed by doom and gloom stories, as you get older you become more cynical. The reason for this is you remember many such speculative stories that never happen. For instance from the few I remember and supposing they had come to pass. Currently there is no Great Barrier Reef, the crown of thorns ate it, Oil is gone we have certainly run out of it by now, currently we are suffering an ice age, everywhere in the world there is mass starvation, we have been hit by an asteroid, a world nuclear war and so on. Those amongst us that are young go to library and start reading newspapers that were published 30 years or more ago, if your game.
So the prophet Pachauri is preaching to believers, he also believes and is unlikely to question it. To realise he is wrong would be devastating to him personally and few change anyway. He is not a scientist he is a manager of large businesses with an education in industrial engineering and economics. The disturbing thing about humans is that such people can sell themselves as environmental scientists when they are nothing of the sort. One thing I know about such leaders is if someone told me he would sell his own mother that I would believe!
Woo hoo indeed; the GPCS is astroturf while PETM is a fact; well PETM and the Azolla event certainly dovetail nicely with AGW; CO2 goes up = hothouse; Azolla eats CO2 which plummets = ice-world. All this is done with models and look at how similar the models are with atmospheric CO2 levels over the eons;
http:www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/11/06/science/earth/20061107_CO2_GRAPHIC.html (// excluded)
And lest we forget, always the CO2 follows the temperature movements. PETM needs work; GPCS is recent and verified; all it needs is for woo hooers like luke to expand their consciousness.
Bunk – how long did the PETM event go on for ….
Face it Cohenite – at this stage you’re just another activist like Gore, Monckton, Flannery, or the Lavoisier mob. You could probably get a job for the IPA now your conversion is complete.
You’ve forever blended your politics, science and philosophy. You don’t even know which way is up anymore.
GPCS doesn’t exist. Verified my arse. Some of us read more than the abstracts matey.
The WIKI entry for the PETM is quite interesting – their principal problem being how to suddenly increase the CO2 content of the earth’s atmosphere. The author’s point out that the conventional explanation, volcanic degassing from the mantle, has never been observed at the rate needed for the PETM event.
Oh really??? This period of earth history is marked by the largest eruption of kimberlites ever – and these eruptions are more than capable of, in a geologically instantaneous event, prodigious volumes of CO2 from the mantle. Kimberlites are characterized by CO2 supercharged eruptions of mantle derived material on the stable continental masses. Kimberlite takes about 9 hours from initial melt to eruption at the surface of the earth.
It is thought that a near earth interaction between the earth and another cosmic body causes upper mantle instabilities associated with far more catastrophic climate events on the earth;s surface.
The reason the authors of the Wiki article have so much difficulty is that their geochronology is based on the fallacy of absolute radiogenic time which has now been falsfied by accurate measurements, so the expanded time scale assigned for the PETM, some 20,000 years, might actually have occurred as a far shorter period, probably as long as the kimberlite eruption associated with that event.
The real bunk is the Lyellian geological model that Geological whigs here proselytise.
Bickers: Too late Luke can’t change his mind, he’s been assimulated.
“Upon assimulation a drone would cease to grow body hair and develop a corpse-like greyish skin . Cybernetic implants would be either surgically attached to the body or grown internally by nanoprobes injected into the bloodstream. The nature of these implants varied from drone to drone, depending on its intended function. The implants of a fully assimulated drone allowed it to function for extended periods without shelter, food,water or even air. A drones only requirement would be a supply of energy to maintain its biological functions. This energy would be supplied during regeneration cycles within a Borg alcove.”
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Borg
The only way out for Luke is this:-
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=x_LuG_NW0ho&NR=1
His gravatar needs updating to something along the lines of:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Picard_as_Locutus.jpg
Well Louis – be grateful that it hasn’t been observed. But vents have – thousands of them.
Try to keep up with your reading.
Nature 429, 542-545 (3 June 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02566; Received 1 September 2003; Accepted 4 April 2004
Release of methane from a volcanic basin as a mechanism for initial Eocene global warming
Henrik Svensen1, Sverre Planke1,2, Anders Malthe-Sørenssen1, Bjørn Jamtveit1, Reidun Myklebust3, Torfinn Rasmussen Eidem2 & Sebastian S. Rey2
1. Physics of Geological Processes, University of Oslo, PO Box 1048 Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway
2. Volcanic Basin Petroleum Research (VBPR), Oslo Research Park, 0349 Oslo, Norway
3. TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company, 3478 Nærsnes, Norway
A 200,000-yr interval of extreme global warming marked the start of the Eocene epoch about 55 million years ago. Negative carbon- and oxygen-isotope excursions in marine and terrestrial sediments show that this event was linked to a massive and rapid (approx10,000 yr) input of isotopically depleted carbon1, 2. It has been suggested previously that extensive melting of gas hydrates buried in marine sediments may represent the carbon source3, 4 and has caused the global climate change. Large-scale hydrate melting, however, requires a hitherto unknown triggering mechanism. Here we present evidence for the presence of thousands of hydrothermal vent complexes identified on seismic reflection profiles from the Vøring and Møre basins in the Norwegian Sea. We propose that intrusion of voluminous mantle-derived melts in carbon-rich sedimentary strata in the northeast Atlantic may have caused an explosive release of methane—transported to the ocean or atmosphere through the vent complexes—close to the Palaeocene/Eocene boundary. Similar volcanic and metamorphic processes may explain climate events associated with other large igneous provinces such as the Siberian Traps (approx250 million years ago) and the Karoo Igneous Province (approx183 million years ago)
WJP – I kacked. Very good.
Luke says “ROTFLMAO!!”
I wondered where you’re brains had gone.
“Note most of the usual temperature trend measures discussed here do not include the Arctic and gee what’s it been doing.”
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/more-arctic-sea-ice/
So it’s growing, sigh, sky!
Last time we had an exchange, you said it was because of the boreal winter, even though then as now the chart shows extent in K m2 ON THE SAME DAY!
heeheehee with glee
Side-by-side images from the Cryosphere show there is more ice on both the Pacific and Atlantic side this year. This is 44 days before the start of the Northern Hemisphere winter and 5 months before it will peak.
Luke says “ROTFLMAO!!”
I wondered where your brains had gone.
“Note most of the usual temperature trend measures discussed here do not include the Arctic and gee what’s it been doing.”
Well:-
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/more-arctic-sea-ice/
So it’s growing, sigh, sky!
Last time we had an exchange, you said it was because of the boreal winter, even though then as now the chart shows extent in K m2 ON THE SAME DAY!
heeheehee with glee
Side-by-side images from the Cryosphere show there is more ice on both the Pacific and Atlantic side this year. This is 44 days before the start of the Northern Hemisphere winter and 5 months before it will peak.
Browny – gee the onset of winter and ice is growing LOL
and a cherry pick of a datum point – ROTFLcopter !!!
The trend has been down for years. So you end up with a whole bunch of thin first year ice. Hurry on next year…. when it all melts again.
Reality is that poles are now all moving … try to keep up …
Nature Geoscience 1, 750 – 754 (2008)
Published online: 30 October 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo338
Attribution of polar warming to human influence
Nathan P. Gillett1, Dáithí A. Stone2,3, Peter A. Stott4, Toru Nozawa5, Alexey Yu. Karpechko1, Gabriele C. Hegerl6, Michael F. Wehner7 & Philip D. Jones1
The polar regions have long been expected to warm strongly as a result of anthropogenic climate change, because of the positive feedbacks associated with melting ice and snow1, 2. Several studies have noted a rise in Arctic temperatures over recent decades2, 3, 4, but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence, owing to sparse observations and large natural variability5, 6. Both warming and cooling trends have been observed in Antarctica7, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report concludes is the only continent where anthropogenic temperature changes have not been detected so far, possibly as a result of insufficient observational coverage8. Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures9, 10 and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities2, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level11.
Luke,
You are a bigger idiot than I had originally thought – what precisely has not been observed – you making an intelligent post?
And what mechanism triggered the eruption of voluminous mantle derived melts – Subduction zones? In the North Atlantic?
Your citation has not been faithful to the Plate Tectonics paradigm.
Post rejected (It’s the blog equivalent of peer review, here it is post review).
Luke,
Looking at your new gravatar, the PETM was on your side so don’t knock it.
Isn’t that when the primates advanced?
There’s hope for me yet.
“Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures9, 10 and simulations from four coupled climate models”……
Luke, please excuse if I don’t genuflect.
“owing to sparse observations and large natural variability”
But the four coupled models soon fix that up.
Thinks…..is that coupled as in copulating?
Since our chief useful idiot prefers Peer Reviewed papers, Gary North’s summary of this is well worth reading.
“PEER REVIEW
In the field of higher education, the myth of neutrality is reinforced by a subordinate myth, the myth of peer review.
Every academic discipline has dozens of professional journals in every large nation. In those universities that pay the highest salaries, in order to gain tenure, an assistant professor must publish articles in a small handful of these peer-reviewed academic journals: the top dozen or so.
These journals are edited by individuals who represent the majority outlook of the members of a particular academic discipline. It is a sub-guild within the guild of higher education.
Every academic journal has an unofficial series of presuppositions and rules governing the publication of articles in the journal. These rules are never put on paper. The editor of the journal selects readers who hold doctorates in the field, and who have specialized in a particular area, to review submitted articles. The editor makes certain that each of the members of the reviewing committee understands the unofficial rules of the game. There is an acceptable range of discourse within the profession that must be respected. Any article that promotes a view of the topic under discussion that raises questions about the range of discourse in the guild will be rejected.
The reviewers are anonymous. They do not have to provide a reason for rejecting an article. They may provide reasons, which are sent to the editor. The editor may or may not pass on this list of reasons to the person who submitted the article.
The closer the article gets to undermining confidence in the received truths of the guild, the less likely the submitter will be informed about why his article was rejected. To provide the real reasons why the article was rejected would call into question the myth of neutrality; it would point out the existence of guild requirements within what is obviously a guild. This is simply not done.
That which is obvious to everyone by the time he is granted his doctorate is never stated publicly by any official within the guild. All of this is sub rosa. All of this operates behind the scenes. Everyone knows it exists. Almost everyone approves of it. Anyone who doesn’t approve of it has these choices: (1) find another academic journal to publish his article; (2) start his own academic journal; (3) write articles that do not lead to doubts about the fundamental presuppositions of the guild; (4) seek employment in a less prestigious institution; (5) enter the private sector – the closest thing to the doctrine of hell that academia has.
The widespread acceptance of this system was undermined by a book: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn, published by the University of Chicago Press in 1962. It did not receive a lot of attention until after 1965, when the worldwide student revolutions began, and the counterculture came into prominence. At that point, academic outsiders in what was known as the New Left began challenging the myth of neutrality in every academic discipline in the humanities.
There were not many New Leftists in engineering, chemistry, and physics, so these departments continued to operate under the old umbrella of the myth of neutrality. This is ironic, because Kuhn’s book focused on the natural sciences, especially the history of chemistry. But in the social sciences and humanities, the myth of neutrality came under attack, and the most important single document to justify this attack was Kuhn’s book.
University presses have also been peer-reviewed, but not nearly so tightly as the journals. University presses are run by editors who want to increase sales. So, they have a tendency to accept salable book manuscripts for publication that may be outside the accepted limits of debate within a particular academic guild. So, peer-reviewed academic presses tend to be more lenient than peer-reviewed academic journals.
A person is more likely to make an impact on his peers through a book published by one of the major university presses than he is by publishing an article in one of the major academic journals. The fact of the matter is, hardly anyone reads all the articles in an academic journal. A person may read a book cover to cover if the book is of interest to him. Rare is the scholar who owes his reputation in his guild solely to the publication of a few articles. There are exceptions. Ronald Coase is an exception. But there are not many like him.
When someone publishes a book, he opens himself to criticism. Specialists in the field may decide to review his book in a highly critical manner. He has an opportunity to revise the book in a second edition, if there is enough demand for the book to justify a second edition. He may write a second book that refutes the criticisms. The point is, the real peer review is from the public that reads his book. This public is much larger than the public that reads a specialized academic journal.
Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north636.html
“The academic guilds are not used to open entry. They are not used to public criticism from non-guild members. If the public ever figures out that it can escape the clutches of higher education in the United States, which absorbs about a third of a trillion dollars a year, the game will end. The guilds will have to compete in a free market. They are not used to this. They will resent it. But they are going to have to learn to live with it.
Long live the web!”
Louis, is that the kicking and screaming we can hear?
Says Louis – a wannbe pseudo-scientist defending his shonky mates quackery.
So Spanglers – let’s not have any standards in your new competitive market – brain surgery – give Louis a go. Bridge buidling – let’s give Louis a turn. Space Shuttle – Louis is your man.
Spangles,
Yes, it’s the rent seekers protecting their, to date, unquestioned funding by the taxpayers from public scrutiny.
I see you read the whole article as well – 🙂
Luke,
Ah, the standard Lukian admission of abject failure. The bile you post here might impress the intellectual dwarfs you look up to, but for the rest of the mob here, once they work out where you are, not even imitating Quasimodo would save you from the pillory in the public square.
I also note you are neither a member of the AusIMM, GSA or AIG, so your Enid Blyton Degree, (B.Sc. Hons) doesn’t cut the mustard. Heavens, we have been in a mineral commodities boom for the last 5 years, and you, as a qualified geologist, was unable to take advantage of the chronic shortage of geologists?
Spangles,
Luke really has an obsession with me, don’t you thin? I am such a danger to the AGW Guild of which Luke is part?
But I do miss the SJT’s soliloqys.
Luke: “competitive market”
Tautology.
Uttered by beings smaller than dwarfs.
The actual area under discussion is a good example of tectonics. The fact that all you’ve been able to come up with is looking a Wiki ….ooooo…. well says it all doesn’t it.
Louis I don’t have an obsession with you – I just think you’re a boring old fart.
Luke,
What area of discussion – what on earth are you blathering about.
All you have done so far is to throw rotten tomatoes and eggs to the stage, not having a clue about the issues you seem to be offended by.
Reminds me of the movie of the Adventures of the Baron Munschausen – but I can’t make up my mind which idiot character you should play.
“PROF. ANN HENDERSON-SELLERS, MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY: A lot of people like myself, and I believe many, many scientists now, who are frantically, hysterically worried.”
About this time every year all cuckoos get frantically, hysterically worried in case they can’t get some sucker to hatch their eggs for them.
I suspect Prof. Ann of similar intent.
Alas Louis I’ve been quoting science – as usual you’ve been gibbering about leftists.
zzzzzzzz ….
Spanglers – of course you guys were lauding Prof Ann just the other day. It seems Ann is a sceptic – she thinks the IPCC have watered things down.
Luke; PETM;
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
The CO2 component of the graph is from Berner’s Geocarb 111 model, the temperature from Scotese’s modelling; note the PETM temperature of a tad under 22C, about 9C higher than today’s GMST, if you believe such things.
Arctic ice;
http:www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png (// excluded)
Area is increasing as well; the ice is now just a fraction under the 1979-2008 average. How can this be with AGW and various predictions made by the usual alarmists? While you are throwing the usual GCM papers, Gillett for gawd’s sake, I’ll just go on throwing empirical evidence.
Luke loses again.
Luke, jump. Jump now.
You know the ship of AGW is sinking. Its only a matter of time, now. You’re not so stupid that you don’t know. Stop trying to defend the indefensible, you know its all over. Jump now.
You know damn well that soon, very soon, thousands of rats will be jumping. Thousands are going to drown in the crush. Jump now, before it’s too late. Jump.
We’re going to have to convert thousanda of bulldozers to picks & shovels, so we can employ the tens of thousands discredited researchers, with no chance of employment, except on the roads. Jump.
If you go soon enough there may be some chance of rehabilitation, so jump, jump now.
Nathan P. Gillett1, Dáithí A. Stone2,3, Peter A. Stott4, Toru Nozawa5, Alexey Yu. Karpechko1, Gabriele C. Hegerl6, Michael F. Wehner7 & Philip D. Jones1
So this is from East Anglia, a crappy little pseudo-tech that is far outside the Times HES top 200. Just the sort of place where green/left evangelicals will be welcome because they attract rivers of funds from second raters like the BoM and then make UEA seem important. This is sad. So what do you think the reviewing standards were like for this particular on-line journal Luke? And it’s just another crappy software model that says: our results are different to observed reality so of course you must believe us! Yoohoo! Then again (note to self) must join this bandwagon if I want to get funded… but do I really want to be a prostitute? Challenging times..
What a bunch of hard tossing increasingly desperate dishonest denialists.
This is the sea ice story http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure2.png
This is the 30 YEAR trend story – http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html
– you’d have to be kidding guys …
Cohenite – a quick PETM primer
During the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) (1), the sea surface temperature rose by 5°C in the tropics (2) and more than 6°C in the Arctic (3), in conjunction with ocean acidification (4) and the extinction of 30 to 50% of deep-sea benthic formaminiferal species (5). The initiation of the PETM is marked by an abrupt decrease in the {delta}13C proportion of marine and terrestrial sedimentary carbon (1, 6), which is consistent with the rapid addition of >1500 gigatons of 13C-depleted carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide and/or methane, into the hydrosphere and atmosphere (7). The PETM is thought to have lasted only 210,000 to 220,000 years, with most of the decrease in {delta}13C occurring over a 20,000-year period at the beginning of the event (8).
But of course the serious news is the 1800 year record of the Asian monsoon that suddenly changes sign in the 1960s after running like a little heartbeat.
A Test of Climate, Sun, and Culture
Relationships from an 1810-Year
Chinese Cave Record
Pingzhong Zhang,1 Hai Cheng,2* R. Lawrence Edwards,2 Fahu Chen,1 Yongjin Wang,3
Xunlin Yang,1 Jian Liu,4 Ming Tan,5 Xianfeng Wang,2 Jinghua Liu,1 Chunlei An,1 Zhibo Dai,1
Jing Zhou,1 Dezhong Zhang,1 Jihong Jia,1 Liya Jin,1 Kathleen R. Johnson6
A record from Wanxiang Cave, China, characterizes Asian Monsoon (AM) history over the past 1810
years. The summer monsoon correlates with solar variability, Northern Hemisphere and Chinese
temperature, Alpine glacial retreat, and Chinese cultural changes. It was generally strong during
Europe’s Medieval Warm Period and weak during Europe’s Little Ice Age, as well as during the final
decades of the Tang, Yuan, and Ming Dynasties, all times that were characterized by popular
unrest. It was strong during the first several decades of the Northern Song Dynasty, a period of
increased rice cultivation and dramatic population increase. The sign of the correlation between
the AM and temperature switches around 1960, suggesting that anthropogenic forcing superseded
natural forcing as the major driver of AM changes in the late 20th century.
What was that ? Jaw drop !!
Add this to the changes in the southern hemisphere to the sub-tropical ridge and southern annular mode described in the recent leading review of rainfall variability in southern Australia – http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/116330641/abstract – then the nutty squirrels that inhabit this forum might start wising up.
I think you meant to post this chart Luke – or maybe you didn’t.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Every northern fall we expect sea ice to return to near the long term average extent. This is because the long-term average is dropping with global warming and because it still remains dark and cold through fall so that the entire Arctic ocean refreezes after the summer melt. BUT if you look at the ice thickness you see the signature of global warming in cm’s thick new ice replacing what was once metres thick multi-year ice – in otherwords the ice volume is falling rapidly. This pattern of record low ice in summer followed by slightly below normal ice extent in fall/winter will continue for a few decades yet, BUT with the freeze up tending later and later and later.
The seasonal refreeze of the Arctic after very low summer ice is exactly to be expected and is a consequence of the enhanced greenhouse effect interacting with the seasonal cycle.
>The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply.
and
>We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]”.
The graph of global temperatures can be seen at the 16.30 minute mark at the video record of the presentation at http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/wallacewurth.html . The graph clearly supports the view of a rapidly warming globe.
This is example of mixing up weather noise and interannual variability with decadal time scale global warming. 1998 was hot because it followed the strongest El Nino of the 20th century. Early 2008 was almost cool because it followed a La Nina, record snow storms across Eurasia and a cool sun.
In recent months surface temperatures have rebounded strongly and are running close to record highs.
I’m happy to talk on Counter Point to clear up any confusion.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/Chip-arctic_sea_ice_loss.pdf
Here is a different explanation by a climate scientist using peer reviewed material.
Of course the people doing the publishing would not be to the liking of the government funded alarmist brigade, who make habit of only telling half the story.
Malcolm
you’re a riot
It’s the sceptics who tell half the story – in fact it’s THE distinguishing feature
And I split my sides “using peer reviewed material” – mate so does the cat – it’s just more fact laundering from a sceptic septic think tank worried shitless about the Arctic. And in the funny fonts they so love. Makes all the difference.
But I love it – Cohenite can use this one every day “using peer reviewed material”. hehehehehe
(be fun to see the money trail for the SPPI mob too)
It is beyond doubt that Arctic ice, in terms of extent and area, is almost back to 1979-2008 averages; the ice thickness, a proxy for ice age, is improving as a cursory glance, from someone with average intelligence and an open mind, at Cryosphere would show; the Arctic ice does have regional climate factors but has been subject to the general and natural warming over the last 30 odd years consistent with the +vePDO prevailing over this period; next year will be revealing and will be one final test of AGW; if Arctic ice increases next year by all 3 indices then AGW is dead(er).
It still astounds me that people like David can utter such specious clap-trap about temperature: “We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before].” This is culpable and should be legally actionable; it is simply and profoundly wrong. All temperature indices show declining temperatures since 1998, except GISS, and even GISS only shows a temeprature increase over the 20thC of 0.6C; based on IPCC forcings and climate sensitivity estimates, this increase should have been 1.3C; arguably the 0,6C is only a product of +ve PDO effects. Simply terrible.
Luke Bsc Hons –you are SO predictable, and so completely obsessed with being the ever lasting vexatious bloggerant there would have to be be a logical reason.
–as for money trails well yes –I would love to know that about lot of people.!
As for who tells half the story — well cant and hypocrisy seem to be the norm with the alarmists and their adoring acoloytes.
Only they are so blinded by their faith that they fail to read — but with you it is has become a trade mark.
Thanks Malcolm. Agreed.
Pachauri is just a typical con artist for a religio/political organisation with little regard for the truth and operating with neither shame nor apology. The UN’s IPCC is a money-maker for India and a lever with which to obtain western technology by pointing to our excessive consumption by warning of coming doom unless we mend our sinful ways.
What is truly disturbing in this whole milieu of worship where finagling is endemic and a necessary requirement, is how could UNSW give this shonk an Honorary Science Degree?
Comment from Bob Carter on the UN Chief and his methods here: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=9tOFoFx7S6M .
Other parts of this series can be found at the community page here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/category/community/
You’d have to say the Bob is very good. Very very good.
But not quite good enough to let the substitute MWP graph slip in. Yes ,,,,,
You’d have to wonder if anyone truly objective is left….
Keiran,
Because the Whigs control government, the universities, and the education system.
Luke and others may well insist it is a scientific issue, it isn’t – its a political issue using climate science as the means to bludgeon us, albeit in a most subtle way by frightening the BJ’s out of us, into behaving how they want us to.
Luke: “But not quite good enough to let the substitute MWP graph slip in. Yes ,,,,,”
A classic non-sequitur – I am not sure whether you or SJT should get top prize for this category.
Let’s keep it simple:
1. Does the World’s climate change – YES
2. Did the World warm for approx 30 years upto 2000 – YES
3. Has World temperature flatlined/dropped since 2000 – YES
4. Is there any empirical evidence that CO2 has caused or greatly exacerbated past or the more recent warming – NO
5. Do we know what other factors can cause climate change – YES
6. Is CO2 beneficial to plant life and crops – YES
7. Other than the Sun what has the largest influence on our climate – The Oceans and water vapour
8. Have the computer models accurately predicted climate change over the last 10 years – NO
9. Do we know enough about the climate – a chaotic, non linear system – to predict climate change with any accuracy – NO
10. Will there be another Ice Age – YES
3 – not if you include the Arctic
4 – wrong
6 – also maybe harmful – increases frost sensitivity (await stupid rebuttal comment), and useless without adequate water, may also preference woody weeds over grasses
7 – conditional – depends – possibly irrelevant
9 – poorly constructed, fundamentally wrong
10 – red herring – not for 10,000s of years
P.S. Louis – substituting one bogus graph in critique of another is pure sophistry. Your tool in trade.
luke; Jennifer sent me the Rayner paper on ‘stilling’; Steve Short has a critique of it at 74 here;
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-heat-engine-2/#comments
Any comments?
Add that to A Test of Climate, Sun, and Culture Relationships from an 1810-Year Chinese Cave Record paper above and the review on SE Aust rainfall – same comment then you start to develop an emerging picture of major changes in atmospheric circulation – the cave data shows this to be a “one-off”. None of this cinches AGW but you’d have to be quite suspicious at this point of a theme that just keeps repeating.
Why does this matter – water resources !!! Really much more important than temperature.
As for Short – well ….. he’s a smart guy eh.
You might also look up “An assessment of relationships between the Australian subtropical ridge, rainfall variability, and high-latitude circulation patterns” (2008)
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119879251/abstract
The real work continues regardless of the political debate….
Luke:
“Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone.”
Actually your tool in trade.