The latest global temperature data from the satellites still shows no significant warming since 1978; when the satellites were first launched.
Read more here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/07/april-global-temperature-anomalies-rss-steady-uah-dropped-50/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Yes definitely no significant warming over the last thirty years ( climate) and we don’t have to worry about the UHI effect with this satellite record.
Also the trend line is curving down so why would anyone want to flush billions of $ down the toilet for ZERO return?
If you want to get a looney response to a non problem and waste billions just ask the lunatic left.
Desperate stuff
– put a linear regression through it.
“The latest global temperature data from the satellites still shows no significant warming since 1978; when the satellites were first launched.”
Perhaps you mistyped. What you mean is, “The latest global temperature data from the satellites continues to show significant warming since 1978; when the satellites were first launched.”
UAH trend: +0.13°C/decade
RSS trend: +0.155°C/decade.
“Desperate stuff
– put a linear regression through it.”
Couldn’t put it better myself.
If the UHA trend were actually +0.13°C/decade then this centuries temps would average above +0.52°C.
Why aren’t they?
If we were suffering co2 warming then the tropical troposphere would be heating at +1.4 times the surface temperature.
Why isn’t it?
If co2 causes a trend of +0.13 C per decade that means an increase of roughly 25% in the atmosphere causes the planet to be about a half a degree warmer, therefore a doubling of the entire co2 stock raises the planets temp 1.5 degrees.
Do you think that one and a half degrees will be catastrophic?
Why doesn’t the evidence agree with the alarmist predictions?
“Why doesn’t the evidence agree with the alarmist predictions?”
Maybe this has something to do with it
http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/dipuccio-2.jpg
With the atmosphere within normal variability, the ocean cooling and a little extra CO2 to keep the grass green, we’ve never had it so good. [that is, until we got this crazy govt but that’s fixable]
A light upward trend from 78 one would think. Due to the 70’s being so desperately cold. Without 98 if you put a linear trend through some points in the early 80’s you could get flat, positive, or negative. Which do you people want? 98 in or out? In or out I sez. Because with out it there is plenty of potential negative trends to draw. And with it the trend line is negative since 98.
Well “peace out” Jimmy Mayeau – coz dude CO2 isn’t the only factor. Does your car only have forward?
A quiet Sun, La Nina and PDO shift will flatten things off for a bit. It’s a wiggle mate…
1.5C catastrophic – well James SST anomalies that change the planet’s rainfall exhibit anomalies 0.5-3 degrees.
But you don’t need to worry coz you’re a god-fearing sepo. You’ll be right mate.
Birdy illustrates why he did arts and flunked that too.
Jen, I wonder what constrains you deep down – certainly not evidence – your comment is absurd to the naked eye and a clothed trendy like Luke or even poor blind Freddie who wonders where have all the frosts gone. I read some interesting stuff about CP Snow and 2 cultures and some wise words on –The Locus of legitimate interpretation – in other words who is entitled to comment on a claim, or entitled to borrow a claim or in your case invent one. It has even been seen as the postmodern shift from the producer end to consumer end. Everybody may well be entitled to an opinion, but what matters is what it is based on. Is everyone entitled to borrow an opinion.?
Obviously the consumer opinion matters in the arts, and that seems to carry over to fields such as economics, medicine, climate, the environment, which are more science-based, and of course religion, fields of knowledge that still touch everyday lives enough for people to feel they can make informed choices, or a bit like their arts comments; they know what they like, and they like what they know. But evidence trumps all that.
Anyway, even if you want to give some weight to a one year outlier at the end of the series, you ought to try an outside view instead of siezing on convenient data. Try validating it against all the other bits of the mountain of evidence you keep trying to chip away at. You are not supposed to start with a hypothesis and support it with an outlier. You are a trained scientist. Dont let your team down!
luke a clothed trendy? Why clothed? Never mind; here is the linear trend for the period;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1978/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:1978/to:2009
Here is the 6th order polynomial;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperature/
Which is the fairest depiction of trend in the period?
While luke is getting dressed let’s look at some other salient points;
http://i38.tinypic.com/16aa03o.jpg
And;
http://i35.tinypic.com/110drw6.jpg
The first graph shows a flat trend post the 1976 step which added about 0.3C to the world’s temperature; the second graph shows that the 1998 super El Nino added > 0.12C to GMST.
And here are temps over all the majors post 2000 with ENSO removed;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ipcc-falsifies-gavin.gif
It is obvious that temp trends from 1976 onwards were determined by Enso steps; this distorts the linear trend; the higher order polynomial collects more data than the lower order OLS linear and smooths the distortion of the steps out. Since 2000 it is clear there has been no underlying warmth and it is plain that since 1998 temps have been trending down;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2009
The only issue is whether, as Tony Jones browbeat Ian Plimer, those post 1998 trending down temps are still at a higher level than any others over the preceeding century.
Here is the 6th order polynomial;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperature/
Which is the fairest depiction of trend in the period?
why not ask somebody who knows something about this?
please ask anyone, who is trained in statistics. present the data to him, and tell him that you did a 6th degree polynomial fit.
enjoy his laughs!
ps: it is a 6th degree, because excel can t do more…..
bazza, While wordy, what you are basically trying to say is that skeptics have no right to express their observation that the world is not facing a climate apocalypse.
You talk at length about not being contrained by evidence. What friggin’ evidence in the real world does the AGW industry have of a pending climate catastrophe?
None. At. All.
Every point you attempt to make about Jennifer is actually true of the AGW promoters.
There is no mountain of evidence for AGW. There is not even a molehill.
There is dubious data, faulty models, and the biggest corruption of science in the public square since eugenics.
There must be some mistake!The world must be warming.Al Gore will not be able to sell all his carbon credits and thus will not live in a manner to which he has become accustomed.
For the sake of the true believers,we must warm the planet and keep the faith.
Do go on Hunter – it’s a stupid piece of stats. Period.
I think Cohers should go for a 40 degree polynomial and put more data in than there is there…
hahahahahahaha
BTW – you already have climate catastrophes – I assume you’d like some more
(yes blogging naked helps)
“Here is the 6th order polynomial;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperature/“
Spencer’s site states that his is a 4th order curve fit.
However, 4th, 6th or whatever, does not alter the fact that the temperature is currently on a downward trend.
And trends computed from statistics of magnitude less than the instrument error.
Pseudoscience at its best.
“please ask anyone, who is trained in statistics. present the data to him, and tell him that you did a 6th degree polynomial fit.
enjoy his laughs!”
Laugh I did, for the physics are not obliging.
But then, in virtual reality, anything, including white rabbets with quantum clocks, are possible. Or so said Dorothy, to the Red Queen.
Yeah, you’re right Jabba; at least I got that it was even.
“Perhaps you mistyped. What you mean is, “The latest global temperature data from the satellites continues to show significant warming since 1978; when the satellites were first launched.”
UAH trend: +0.13°C/decade
RSS trend: +0.155°C/decade.”
Wow, that might mean a 1.3C temperature increase by 2100. I’m crapping myself! Global catastrophe will ensure when that happens. LOL.
To all of you that still believe in AGW,
Please. Do yourselves a favour. Look again at the graph that is presented on this post. Pretend it is not graphing temperatures but, maybe the cost of a commodity, say gold.
Now, would you say that the price of gold is escalating up, out of control? Or maybe you would think: it seems that there was an spike at 1998, but otherwise the trend is just slightly upwards. Nothing to worry about so far. It even looks like on last years gold prices seems to be in a decreasing trend.
You can believe in AGW, but please, don’t delude yourselves. You don’t have to see what is not to be seen. The graph does not demonstrate that AGW is not true. It only shows that warming has stopped for whatever the reason.
I hated when skeptics used to deny that there was indeed a warming in the 90s, don’t you do the same on the 00s.
Most damning of all is the tropical mid-tropospheric temperature trend. Despite the fact that by the IPCC’s own projections that this is where the strongest warming should be happening what do we get? Nadda. Squat. Diddly. In fact temperatures are lower now than they were 30 years ago!
http://tinyurl.com/opts5h
Miskolczi just may be right!
It is worse than you think! I ran more numbers at the NOAA/NCDC. National Climate Data Center site.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
I plotted a graph of annual temperatures from 1998 through 2008 we have been in a global cooling trend of .77F per decade.
http://nofreewind.com/images/charts/noaa_temp_rec.jpg
Now here is what I am thinking. Multiply that times ten and I PREDICT that we are now entering a global cooling phase and that in 100 years we are going to be cooler by more than .77 x 10 = 7.7F.
Much of the planet will be covered in ice and uninhabitable. Please send me money so I can find a solution to this problem! It is going to be terrible. Someone tell Obama so we can pass laws and stop this. The human race is sure to be destroyed. Ice scrapers for sale. What? You don’t believe my data, you denier!
No significant warming of atmosphere or oceans in the past decade.
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/
The RSS trend has continued to drop over the past couple of years, falling more in line with the UAH trend.
Climate sensitivity must be revised downwards, plain and simple. It would be nice if the IPCC saw fit to finally throw out the 6C/century models so that catastrophists could stop using them as ammunition.
Would love to see some economic forecasts for a more reasonable 1 C temperature increase. I don’t think the results would make the front page. I could live with CO2 price being permanently fixed at $5/tonne.
“Now, would you say that the price of gold is escalating up, out of control? Or maybe you would think: it seems that there was an spike at 1998, but otherwise the trend is just slightly upwards. Nothing to worry about so far. It even looks like on last years gold prices seems to be in a decreasing trend.”
Unlike the price of gold, which is set by the purely abstract notion of the value of a piece of metal that just happens to be more shiny than most, AGW has a physical basis. It is undeniable that backradiation is causing the earth to warm, Spencer, Christy and Michaels all agree. The only debate is the extent of the warming. If you consider that there are natural cycles that tend to mask the underlying trend, the current state of the climate is consistent with AGW. That is, the natural variations, such as the 1998 spike, clearly indicate natural cycles can be quite large, over a very short period of time. (Tell me, where did all the energy appear from to cause that 1998 spike? ) but the underlying trend is still there. This decade is still warmer than the previous decade. That decade was warmer than the decade before it. The warming is not ‘out of control’. It’s an unintended consequence of burning fossil fuels, and natural factors will limit it, but it’s going to be at least 3C, and could possibly be 6C. Either rise will have major consequences for us and the rest of the species on this planet.
Joel it certainly is a problem with the ocean heat deficit for future temp rise as well. Pielke,s info should be read by all of the AGW fantasists, he may have been ignored for 2 years but the problem won’t go away.
We’ve had early 20th century cooling then warming to about 1945, then cooling to 1975, then warming to 1998, then cooling to 2009.( see Karoly’s admission to recent cooling)
A lot of this warming and cooling can be attributed to the negative and positive ENSO and in turn the positive and negative PDO.( warmer = el nino or negative and positive for PDO)
The whole of the cool 1945 to 1975 was dominated by a negative pdo and strong + la ninas and of course the next 20+ years were dominated by very strong el ninos – and a positive PDO phase culminating in the once in a century el nino in 1998.
So the temps cooled between 1945 to 1975 and warmed between 1976 and 1998 and are now cooling slightly to 2009 easy to understand without resorting to illogical references to co2.
I’d like some of the bigger brains here to give their opinion on Pielke’s ocean heat deficit argument being problematic for future warming, afterall we’re talking about nearly 3/4 of the planet’s surface.
BTW the problem starts much earlier of course, if scientists maintain the LIA ENDED 150 years ago the temp must go UP because there must be a recovery to a higher temp or the LIA didn’t end DUH.
The usual temp drop during the LIA is claimed to be 1 degree C and we’ve recovered about .7C so what is the problem?
from Roy Spencer’s latest post:
“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact.”
-Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)
Why do deniers have to use quotes from some long dead person all the time? It is apparently seen as a means of claiming authority for their views.
Ok then – read an interview with someone who is alive and kicking!
http://www.sitnews.us/BillSteigerwald/042209_steigerwald.html
Neville,
The usual arguement against the PDO having any effect on global temperatures is that the transfer of energy within the Earth system can’t change the radiation budget. I would agree with this except that a miniscule change of cloudiness can easily swamp any CO2 effect.
When’s Hansen’s next super El Nino scheduled to arrive?
SJT – “It’s an unintended consequence of burning fossil fuels, and natural factors will limit it, but it’s going to be at least 3C, and could possibly be 6C.”
At least 3C? IPCC doesn’t agree with you. This is there best estimate or model ensemble mean, so get with the program.
6C is a joke and anyone with half a brain knows it. Its up there with the tooth fairy and the boogie man.
RW “UAH trend: +0.13°C/decade”
1979 to 2009 = 3 decades and @ 0.13C per decade that’s 0.39 C since 1979. Do you see such a trend on the graph?
The vertical axis on that graph should show the average +15 C in the atmosphere not the highly exaggerated tenths of a degree you AGWers love to use for your alarmist rhetoric. Here’s a graph that shows exactly that (see figure 5):
http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html
It’s plain to see in figure 5 that no rising trend is present and that atmospheric temperatures have not risen significantly at all.
You can shove your realclimate crap.
I could be wrong, but I don’t recall a topic being created here with that graph when it hit the previous peak, and a little blue arrow pointing at it. Wasn’t that long ago.
sod “please ask anyone, who is trained in statistics. present the data to him, and tell him that you did a 6th degree polynomial fit.”
No…tell the mathematicians to go shove it. Mathematicians don’t belong in climate science, especially when they can’t see the obvious and have a demented need to adjust data to their liking.
Joel
“anyone with half a brain knows it”
That’s the problem!
Interesting how unsure the AGW fools really are that they recommend lying to try and save the day.
Andrew Bolt gives a number of examples today plus some of the extraordinary claims.
Of course silly Tim and 100 metres Robyn are there to try and save this stupid argument.
If they’re so sure of their argument why the need to lie?
@ cohenite
“Yeah, you’re right Jabba; at least I got that it was even.”
It’s only the salami slicing nitpickers around here who are likely to make an issue of it, whereas everyone else got the picture sufficiently clearly.
SJT,
You have no evidence what so ever that the projected CO2 levels or projected levels will yield a 3-6oC rise in global temps.
You only have models to refer to which written to support that result.
Is it not odd that AGW constantly requires saving from evil skeptics?
“You only have models to refer to which written to support that result.”
A blatant lie. The models are written to encapsulate as much of the physical basis simulating a climate as possible. They were not written to support any result.
The ubiquitous “long term trend” so often used is a torturous abuse of linear regression and should not be used to diagnose non-linear data. In reality, there is no statistically meaningful warming from 1979-1997. It breaks down as such:
1979-1997: .024C/dec
2001-2009: -.20C/dec
The trends will vary slightly of course depending on the start points, but there is no doubt warming stalled after 2001 and definitely has trended downward since 2002.
Whatever the cause, 1998 was the peak, or some sort of climate shift, recovering until ~2001, and sliding downward since.
Removing Pinatubo and Chrichton volcano influence will decrease the overall trend, and the 1979-1997 trend would still remain near zero.
http://tinyurl.com/qvp8x6
In the illustration, the solid red lines are the trends for the 3 sections 1979-1997, 1997-2001, 2001-2009. The white dotted line is overall trend. The solid white and green lines are derived from Hodrick-Prescott. I prefer H-P when analyzing this type of data to give a clearer picture of what the data is showing. The patterns stick out like a sore thumb. Note the tightly bound data from 2001 onward versus prior to 1998.
The tropical troposphere is where it all begins, and does not bode well for CO2 AGW. Trends in the various data sets are thus in Cdeg/decade:
UAH T2LT (0.014)
RSS TLT (0.09)
CRU (0.103)
NOAA (0.117)
GISS (0.132)
HadAT 850 hPa radiosonde (-0.001)
The discrepancy between UAH and RSS is caused by a warm bias in RSS. Nonetheless, the atmosphere is not warming per the CO2 AGW hypothesis.
Additionally, the claim the stratosphere “is cooling” is yet another erroneous use of linear regression. The cooling is stepped, coinciding with Pinatubo and Chrichton volcano eruptions. Since 1994, there has been no “cooling” of the stratosphere.
http://tinyurl.com/offymj
“A blatant lie. The models are written to encapsulate as much of the physical basis simulating a climate as possible. They were not written to support any result.”
SJT
Here is what Keven Trenberth, an IPCC lead author, had to say about the models:
“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. … Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. … Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.”
You can read the full statement in this peer reviwed source and in full context, here:
(http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html)
So, there you have it from the horse’s mouth. The IPCC climate models are worthless.
“So, there you have it from the horse’s mouth. The IPCC climate models are worthless.”
You have completely misunderstood what he is saying.
“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.”
The future human behaviour is completely unpredictable in a physical sense. Since CO2 is the major forcing at present, and we cannot predict how humans will behave, the IPCC has to come up with scenarios based on how we will possibly behave.
“Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.”
The models cannot replicate regional level changes, nor predict when the significant cyclical events will occur. That is not what they do, they just take the current ‘mix’ of factors, which disregard the current state of the weather’, and tell us what the future ‘mix’ of factors will produce. I have never thought they will tell us exactly what is going to happen, but they give us an idea, based on the laws of physics, as best as they can be programmed. New super computers will allow for much smaller grids, and more realistic cloud simulation.
“The IPCC report makes it clear that there is a substantial future commitment to further climate change even if we could stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. And the commitment is even greater given that the best we can realistically hope for in the near term is to perhaps stabilize emissions, which means increases in concentrations of long-lived greenhouse gases indefinitely into the future. Thus future climate change is guaranteed.
So if the science is settled, then what are we planning for and adapting to? A consensus has emerged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause. Hence mitigation of the problem: stopping or slowing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is essential. The science is clear in this respect.”
The IPCC report is based on much more than the models, and it indicates warming. To just say that since we have no idea how much warming there will be, there is no problem, is completely illogical. If my doctor told me to stop smoking, but he can’t tell exactly what would happen to me, that’s no reason to keep smoking. Trenberth clearly thinks there is a problem, even if we cannot know exactly what will happen.
For a another view:-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/07/april-global-temperature-anomalies-rss-steady-uah-dropped-50/
SJT:
“A blatant lie. The models are written to encapsulate as much of the physical basis simulating a climate as possible. They were not written to support any result”.
You know not what you do.
All computer models are designed to produce the result previously agreed on.
One cannot code a computer program to predict unexpected outcomes, since by definition, this is excluded by definition, and assuption.
Mathemtics isn’t science.
I wonder how many tautogies SJT could absorb before wilting from the pressure of fact?
tautologies, as David Suchet might aver as his character Poirot in one of Christy’s novels, when trying to explain the unexplainable to the dull among us.
Roberston “Mathematicians don’t belong in climate science”
hahahahahahahahahaha
What a dick ! hahahahahahaha
With language you can make anything sound plausible like in SJT’s comment of May 9th, 2009 at 8:38 am:
“If you consider that there are natural cycles that tend to mask the underlying trend, the current state of the climate is consistent with AGW. ”
I could phrase it like this: If you consider that there are natural cycles that tend to dominate or govern the underlying trend, the current state of the climate is inconsistent with AGW.
Luke,
“Roberston “Mathematicians don’t belong in climate science” and “Mathemtics isn’t science. cf LH”.
Says it all, really.
“I could phrase it like this: If you consider that there are natural cycles that tend to dominate or govern the underlying trend, the current state of the climate is inconsistent with AGW.”
The El Nino cycles cause large, temporary excursions from the baseline, but they also go relativelyy quickly. There is an underlying trend quite clearly present in the temperature graph, as Luke said, do a linear regression. Climate change is going to be here and happening for the next several centuries.
At long last these fools have said something I can agree with completely. Climate change will always be with us, for the next 5 years 20 years 50 years and forever.
Let’s just hope we don’t crack it for a real biggy though like Yosemite national park blowing its stack, because we really will have a fair dinkum problem to deal with then, those left alive will anyhow.
You can always rely on some idiot to deliberately misinterpret what you say. Just a sign of a feeble intellect.
SJT, don’t blame the listener when the message is so wrong/poorly stated. We get that you are a “true” believer. We also get that it is harder and harder to make the case when reality diverges from AGW beliefs.
Few disagree that it is warming, long term. What most (at least I) disagree with is the alarmism/catastrophic predictions associated with it.
“Few disagree that it is warming, long term.”
Wasn’t that the whole point of this topic?
I am not a true believer. I accept AGW is valid only because of the evidence, which includes a physical basis.
SJT, “Wasn’t that the whole point of this topic?”
Nope! Unless you consider the past 30 years long term
I” am not a true believer. I accept AGW is valid only because of the evidence, which includes a physical basis.””
Self denial is still denial. Sheesh!!!
“Few disagree that it is warming, long term.”
What, exactly, is “long term” and how many are “few”?
Historically, the planet’s average temperature has been lower than it is now, has it not?
So – “long term, few disagree that we will return to those lower temperatures” seems like a reasonable statement, too.
From what I’ve seen, many disagree on what will happen over the next 30 years. I’d consider that to be “30 year short term”. Some say we will continue to cool, some say warming that was evident in the 1990’s will begin again, and some say that rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere will cause us to warm with catastrophic results, and some say something else entirely. Yep, “many disagree” seems reasonable to state.
However, “The latest global temperature data from the satellites still shows no significant warming since 1978; when the satellites were first launched” appears to be a valid statement.
It appears that the only ones who disagree with this are the ones who simply do not want to believe it. One can distort and misrepresent facts and “statistics”, but the truth will rise and can not be denied. The true “deniers” in this scenario are those who steadfastly cling to the AGW by CO2 concepts. Pity, too, because from what I’ve read, some of them are actually reasonably intelligent individuals.
Hmm… should I change the word “some” in the previous sentence to “few” or “many”? I’ll have to get back to you all on that.
🙂
Once you factor out ENSO, PDO and solar cycle, UAH still shows a background warming trend continuing through the current decade:
http://tinyurl.com/r4xc9c
Desperate stuff
But you don’t need to worry coz you’re a god-fearing sepo.
Birdy illustrates why he did arts and flunked that too.
Do go on Hunter – it’s a stupid piece of stats. Period.
Much anger in him. Like his father. The boy has no patience.
Beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.
How are we to know?
You will know the good side from the bad… when you are calm, at peace, passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack.
A quiet Sun, La Nina and PDO shift will flatten things off for a bit.
Now you are talking sense.
Just as an active Sun, El Nino and positive PDO shift fluffed things up for a bit. A very small bit. Just that one year pretty much.
Sun and ocean driving the weather. Calm, at peace, passive. Sounds like nature to me.
SJT point to the co2 signal for me. Having a hard time finding it among all those wiggles.
SJT “Climate change is going to be here and happening for the next several centuries”.
Anything is possible, but if it’s anything like what is happening now, it will be just as localized and far from global. There is little argument that the Arctic is warmer but that does not hold for half the planet, which has cooled. Besides, most Arctic warming, by far, occurs in the dead of winter, when climate change is hardly likely.
SJT “A consensus has emerged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers….”
You are quoting the Summary for Policymakers…a summary…aimed at politicians!! It was written by 50 scientists who ignored the consensus of the main body of 4000 scientists then had the temerity to re-write the main report to reflect their decision.
Lindzen claimed the consensus of the main scientific report in AR4 was to wait and see what would develop since not enough was known about climate science. That is partly Trenberth’s approach. If you read through some of the IPCC records and note the number of suggestions for the report that were over-ruled on flimsy evidence, you will get a revelation as to just how political the IPCC brass can be.
The science is not in the least clear in any sense. I’m not interested in the opinions of 50 hard-line AGW scientists, or even in the 4000 overall who do the reviews. They screwed up the peer review on Mann’s hockey stick and there is an indication that one of the review groups is filled with people who work together.
Luke “Roberston “Mathematicians don’t belong in climate science” hahahahahahahahahaha”
Wassamatta?? I hit a nerve?? The role of mathematicians is to help physicists and other disciplines with the proper mathematical analysis. Physicists are not trained in the intracasies of math and the reverse is true as well.
For someone like Gavin Schmidt to set himself up as an authority on climate science is nothing more than sheer arrogance. The guy doesn’t know anymore physics than I do and that is plain in his amateurish explanations on realclimate. The engineer, Glassman, took him apart on feedback theory, but even the good guys, like Roy Spencer, are confused about feedback. He recently explained that the concept of positive feedback as used in climate science is adopted from 1940’s electrical theory.
On his blog home page, under the title “When is Positive Feedback Really Negative Feedback?” Spencer states the following:
“I get an amazing number of e-mails from engineers who point out that the climate system can not be dominated by positive feedback, because that would mean the climate is unstable, in which case it would have careened out of control long ago.
So, I have to keep explaining to them that climate researchers have ‘redefined’ positive feedback. We borrowed the concept from electric circuit theory, which was elucidated back in the 1940s. And, yes, all of you engineers are right…in your terms, the climate system IS dominated by negative feedback”.
It makes no sense that climate scientists have borrowed a term from physics and redefined it to mean negative feedback. Spencer is admitting there is no such thing as positive feedback in the atmosphere even though he earlier refered to an amplification in water vapour. I hate to say this, because I respect Roy and the work he is doing, but climate scientists seem to have screwed up royally on the meaning of positive feedback. Their entire theory depends on it and G&T have pointed out, as well as all the engineers who have written to Roy, that the mechanism is not there for ACO2 warming.
IMHO, climate science has far too many people trained as mathematicians, geologists, geophysicists, computer programmers, etc., and not enough real physicists with training in meteorology or atmospheric physics. Those who are trained in physics, like Craig Bohren, are highly skeptical of AGW theory. Mathematicians like Gavin Schmidt are making a fool of physics due to their complete lack of understanding of the basics. Even on this blog, we get people using fringe arguments based on math and very little understanding of the underlying physics.
“IMHO, climate science has far too many people trained as mathematicians, geologists, geophysicists, computer programmers, etc., and not enough real physicists with training in meteorology or atmospheric physics.”
So you will forget Miscolczi, G&T and Beck? None of them are trained in climatology. We can also ditch Bob Carter.
Gordon Robertson says:
No…It is not sheer arrogance to say one is an authority on a subject that one has written countless papers on in the peer-reviewed literature. What is sheer arrogance is when people on the internet with no particular training and no publication record in the field think that they actually know more than the experts in the field. I must say, however, that your posts do make for entertaining reading!
Please…Aren’t you the one who fell for the G&T crap about the greenhouse effect violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? I think studying you “skeptics” would make for an interesting sociology study in how people with so little knowledge can think that they have so much knowledge and that the people who actually have the knowledge know so much less than them. I’ll give you guys credit for being quite fascinating from a sociological point of view!
I can’t believe the nonsensical arguments that are used here day in day out to try and prove this theory of AGW based on the increase in the atmosphere of a minor trace gas by .01%.
But if it isn’t co2 what could increase the planet’s average temp by 0.7C over the last 30+ years?( 22 years if we finish at say 1999- 2000)
Fact one– After centuries of the LIA scientists tell us it finished around 1850, then up to 1976 we had warmer and cooler periods until a step up of 0.3c because of the end of the cool phase PDO.( 1945 to 1976)
If the LIA ends therefore the temp must go up or it hasn’t ended and the scientists are telling us porkies. We are told that the reduction in temp due to the LIA was around 1C so far we have recovered 0.7C of that 1C .
Fact 2– in that 22 year period we have seen a series of el ninos and positive PDO which of course leads to an increase in temp and less rainfall in Australia. Since the negative PDO and the positve la nina the temp of course has dropped slightly ( Karoly admits this) and heavy rainfall has been experienced over all but southern Australia.
Fact 3— the planet has recieved very high levels of solar radiation over 70 of the last 100 years, recently of course this has dropped away and Hathaway’s NASA team have been in turmoil ( last 48 hours) trying to make sense of the last solar cycle and lack of sunspots. But I would contend that increased solar radiation over 70 years would increase the planet’s temp by a small ammount, how much who knows.
Just to finish on the lack of rainfall over southern Aust (particularly SE Aust). Since 1992 ( 17 long years) the Indian ocean dipole has been locked into the warm phase, probably the longest period since 1895. ( see UNSW)
It’s sickening to hear dummies like garrett, rudd and wong attribute this lack of rainfall to AGW, but I suppose we’ll just have to wait for the cool phase IOD and a return to normal rainfall before these numbskulls wake up.
All this means that the 0.7C increase in the planet’s average temp is very easily explained but not by the increase of a minor trace gas by an extra one hundredth of one percent of the atmosphere.
”
I can’t believe the nonsensical arguments that are used here day in day out to try and prove this theory of AGW based on the increase in the atmosphere of a minor trace gas by .01%.”
I can’t believe an argument that is no more than an appeal to emotion is put forward, when the science has a physical basis.
And they have to resort to tawdry mathematical tricks to avoid the fact that the concentration of CO2 is well on the way to doubling.
Luke: “hahahahahahahahahaha
What a dick ! hahahahahahaha”
How could anyone fail to be persuaded by such a carefully crafted argument? Luke is just the guy we need to inform the govt on a sound basis for policy going foreward. He has my trust.
Manuel May 9th, 2009 at 3:18 am
A better example than the gold price would be your own personal super balance. Returns have consistentrly increased since 1720. That you observe that your own balance has just declined by 50% just means that you’re stupid. Give me more money. Linear regression!
SJT: And they have to resort to tawdry mathematical tricks to avoid the fact that the concentration of CO2 is well on the way to doubling.
Based on what scientific evidence?
Neville – your comment on the IOD belies your complete ignorance of what is really being said. In fact the IOD researchers are suggesting that the Indian Ocean Dipole research that you have cited as AGW antidote is actually indicating an AGW effect. Wake up mate !! Hello !
What does Dr Caroline Ummenhofer, the author of the IOD paper you cited, reckon?
“This is something new. This has never, in the historical record, happened before,” Dr Ummenhofer said. “So there are some indications that positive Indian Ocean dipole events are becoming more frequent and negative events are becoming less frequent.”
The dominant role of the Indian Ocean explains why the La Nina event, which usually brings more rain, failed to break the drought when it last occurred in 2007.
Betcha mate Neville will now suddenly fall out of love with the IOD !
Cai and Cowan say climate change projections show the frequency of positive IOD events will increase in the future.
“Almost all climate models say under climate change we are going to have an Indian Ocean warming pattern,” says Cai.
“That means it has to be manifested in either more frequent positive IOD events or higher intensity positive IODs.”
According to Cai, the effects of climate change can already be seen.
Between 1900 and 1930 there were four positive IOD events, he says.
But, in the past 30 years there have been 12 positive IODs, a 400% increase.
Nature Geoscience 1, 849 – 853 (2008)
Published online: 16 November 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo357
Recent intensification of tropical climate variability in the Indian Ocean
Nerilie J. Abram1,2, Michael K. Gagan1, Julia E. Cole3, Wahyoe S. Hantoro4 & Manfred Mudelsee5
The interplay of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, Asian monsoon and Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD)1, 2, 3 drives climatic extremes in and around the Indian Ocean. Historical4, 5 and proxy6, 7, 8, 9 records reveal changes in the behaviour of the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the Asian monsoon over recent decades10, 11, 12. However, reliable instrumental records of the IOD cover only the past 50 years1, 3, and there is no consensus on long-term variability of the IOD or its possible response to greenhouse gas forcing13. Here we use a suite of coral oxygen-isotope records to reconstruct a basin-wide index of IOD behaviour since AD 1846. Our record reveals an increase in the frequency and strength of IOD events during the twentieth century, which is associated with enhanced seasonal upwelling in the eastern Indian Ocean. Although the El Niño Southern Oscillation has historically influenced the variability of both the IOD and the Asian monsoon3, 8, 10, we find that the recent intensification of the IOD coincides with the development of direct, positive IOD–monsoon feedbacks. We suggest that projected greenhouse warming may lead to a redistribution of rainfall across the Indian Ocean and a growing interdependence between the IOD and Asian monsoon precipitation variability.
Wakey wakey…
BTW Sinkers a 6 degree polynomial is a mathematical trick. If you don’t know whey – go sit in the dunce corner. AND if you look at the left hand end of that graph – it’s heading IN THE WRONG DIRECTION !!!!!!
hahahahashahahaha – you clown !
But isn’t this all nitpicking about the wrong metric ? Surely retained global heat should be the criterion, and the atmosphere can only retain ~ one 3500th the heat of the oceans. As the latest measurements show, the ocean is losing heat over the past five years despite rising CO2 concentrations, and the deficit will require atmospheric increases that even the IPCC do not envisage for at least the next ten years, not likely given the state of the Sun at present !
Of course for those who don’t believe the Sun has anything to do with fluctuations in climate, have some happy winters paying inflated prices for increasingly unreliable ‘Green” electricity.
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/
“But isn’t this all nitpicking about the wrong metric ? Surely retained global heat should be the criterion, and the atmosphere can only retain ~ one 3500th the heat of the oceans. As the latest measurements show, the ocean is losing heat over the past five years despite rising CO2 concentrations, and the deficit will require atmospheric increases that even the IPCC do not envisage for at least the next ten years, not likely given the state of the Sun at present !”
How do you explain 1998?
Ian Plimer gets a good admonishing at the OZ.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html
“ONE of the peculiar things about being an astronomer is that you receive, from time to time, monographs on topics such as “a new theory of the electric universe”, or “Einstein was wrong”, or “the moon landings were a hoax”.
The writings are always earnest, often involve conspiracy theories and are scientifically worthless.
One such document that arrived last week was Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth. What makes this case unusual is that Plimer is a professor — of mining geology — at the University of Adelaide. If the subject were anything less serious than the future habitability of the planet Earth, I wouldn’t go to the trouble of writing this review.
Plimer sets out to refute the scientific consensus that human emissions of CO2 have changed the climate. He states in his acknowledgments that the book evolved from a dinner in London with three young lawyers who believed the consensus. As Plimer writes: “Although these three had more than adequate intellectual material to destroy the popular paradigm, they had neither the scientific knowledge nor the scientific training to pull it apart stitch by stitch. This was done at dinner.”
This is a remarkable claim. If Plimer is right and he is able to show that the work of literally thousands of oceanographers, solar physicists, biologists, atmospheric scientists, geologists, and snow and ice researchers during the past 100 years is fundamentally flawed, then it would rank as one of the greatest discoveries of the century and would almost certainly earn him a Nobel prize. This is the scale of Plimer’s claim.
Before reading any further, I examined Plimer’s publication list on the University of Adelaide website to see what he has published in refereed journals. There are a scant 17 such papers since 1994, two as first author with the titles “Manganoan garnet rocks associated with the Broken Hill Pb-Zn-Ag orebody” and “Kasolite from the British Empire Mine”. Absolutely nothing on climate science.
Now, before I am accused of attacking the man and not the argument, let me point out that scientists regard peer-reviewed journal publications as fundamental for advancing science. They allow ideas to be exchanged, tested, improved on and, quite frequently, discarded. If Plimer can do what he claims, and can prove that human emissions of CO2 have no effect on the climate, then he owes it to the scientific community and, in fact, humanity, to publish his arguments in a refereed journal.
Perhaps we will find a stitch-by-stitch demolition of climate science in his book, as promised? No such luck. The arguments that Plimer advances in the 503 pages and 2311 footnotes in Heaven and Earth are nonsense. The book is largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere. The writing is rambling and repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical.
He recycles a graph, without attribution, from Martin Durkin’s Great Global Warming Swindle documentary, neglecting even to make the changes that Durkin made following an outcry over the fact that the past two decades of temperature measurements had been mysteriously deleted.
Plimer claims that scientists such as himself, who do not agree with the consensus, are labelled deniers, “yet their scientific doubts are not addressed”. Nothing could be further from the truth. All of Plimer’s arguments have been addressed ad nauseam by patient climate scientists on websites or in the literature.
To appreciate the errors in Plimer’s book you don’t have to be a climate scientist. For example, take the measurement of the global average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is obviously important, so scientists measure it with great care at many locations across the world.
Precision measurements have been made daily since 1958 at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, a mountain-top site with a clear airflow unaffected by local pollution. The data is in excellent agreement with ice cores from several sites in Antarctica and Greenland. Thousands of scientific papers have been written on the topic, hundreds of scientists are involved from many independent research groups.
Plimer, however, writes that a simple home experiment indoors can show that in a week, CO2 can vary by 75 parts per million by volume, equal to about 40 years’ worth of change at the present rate. He thinks this “rings alarm bells” on the veracity of the Mauna Loa data, which shows a smoothly rising concentration.
While it is undoubtedly true that if you measure CO2 in your home it could vary by large amounts from day to day — depending, for example, on whether you have the windows open or closed, or how many people are in the house at the time — this is not the right way to measure a global average. That’s why scientists go to mountain-tops or Antarctica or to the isolated Cape Grimm on the Tasmanian coast rather than measuring CO2 in their living rooms.
Incredible as it may seem, this quality of argument is typical of the book. While the text is annotated profusely with footnotes and refers to papers in the top journals, thus giving it the veneer of scholarship, it is often the case that the cited articles do not support the text. Plimer repeatedly veers off to the climate sceptic’s journal of choice, the bottom-tier Energy and Environment, to advance all manner of absurd theories: for example, that CO2 concentrations actually have fallen since 1942.
Plimer believes “global warming” occurring on Mars, Triton, Jupiter and Pluto proves human emissions of CO2 don’t affect Earth’s climate. He believes that once CO2 levels reached 200ppmv (about half of today’s value) the CO2 had absorbed almost all the infrared energy it could, and further increases will not have much effect. He believes global warming does not lead to biological stress. He believes volcanoes emit significant quantities of chlorofluorocarbons. He believes the sun formed on the collapsed core of a supernova. All these ideas are so wrong as to be laughable: they do not offer an “alternative scientific perspective”.
Plimer probably didn’t expect an astronomer to review his book. I couldn’t help noticing on page120 an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass”. This paper argues that the sun isn’t composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite.
It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis. “
SJT, Convergence of maxima.
“SJT, Convergence of maxima.”
Do go on.
SJT,
If you took up Rock Fishing you’d find out, if only ——-
luke;
The graph of any polynomial with degree 2 or greater
f(x) = a0 + a1x + a2x2 + … + anxn , where an ≠ 0 and n ≥ 2
is a continuous non-linear curve
Why is the end pointing the wrong way?
“1979 to 2009 = 3 decades and @ 0.13C per decade that’s 0.39 C since 1979. Do you see such a trend on the graph?”
Yes.
“1979 to 2009 = 3 decades and @ 0.13C per decade that’s 0.39 C since 1979. Do you see such a trend on the graph?”
LMAO. So if we don’t “see it”, it’s not there?
“this theory of AGW based on the increase in the atmosphere of a minor trace gas by .01%.”
I must take strong exception to Neville’s estimate. Assuming a 280 ppm pre-industrial atmosphere and 390 ppm of CO2 today, and assuming that this difference has come about by human combustion, then, since carbon has merely been combined with the existing oxygen, a weight estimate must focus on the carbon that’s been added. Extra carbon therefore being in the neighborhood of 235 gigatons, this would make the atmosphere approximately 0.00456% heavier. In other words, the pre-industrial weight of the atmosphere times 1.0000456 equals what the atmosphere weighs today.
Yet Neville more than DOUBLES the figure. Shame on his alarmism!
There is no statistically significant warming from 1979-1997 in the satellite data.
Yes SJT I also read the review of Plimers book article.
It is remarkable that the reviewer castigates Plimer for not publishing AGW if recent origin, whilst acknowleding that he himself is an astronomer—and therefore fails on the same measure. What a hypocrite. WTF would a star gazer know about the topic anymore than a down to earth rrockologist.
It is also remarkable how he cherry picks the material that suits, to try to knock down Plimers premises but fails on that score as well, and by implication is saying all the other points made by Plimer must be ok–and they are many.
There are many disturbing points made not the least of which is the shonky nature of the IPCC and how it is given to gross exaggeration and deliberate manipulation–still.
Personally I dont think either the IPCC or Plimer, or the reviewer have made the case one way or another.
“If you took up Rock Fishing you’d find out, if only ——-”
If there are convergence of maxima, can there be convergence of minima?
“It is remarkable that the reviewer castigates Plimer for not publishing AGW if recent origin, whilst acknowleding that he himself is an astronomer—and therefore fails on the same measure. What a hypocrite. WTF would a star gazer know about the topic anymore than a down to earth rrockologist.”
The astronomer is replying to Plimer on Plimer’s terms, as he is entitled to. He certainly knows that much of the ‘evidence’ Plimer presents is pure hokum. Beck, TGGWS (original, not ‘directors special cut’ edition even), Monckton. All obvious chicanery he should not be falling for.
Wasn’t Michael Ashley the idiot who claimed we couldn’t possibly have evidence of solar/cosmic ray effects on climate going back hundreds of years as we didn’t discover cosmic rays until 1910?
He had this published on the letters page in the Australian. Obviously he’s never heard of historical proxies for cosmic ray bombardment and he’s an astronomer?
What a loon. Too many pretend scientists in the sheltered workshops of academia.
Well SJT I have followed your one sided commentary for some years now along with your usual mates, and pimps for the AGW, and mainly moonlighting public servants for some GW bolt hole.
It is truly pathetic, and BTW par for the course with you people, just to say that he replying to Plimer on Plimers terms,as he is entitled to, as though that absolves the reviewer being credible himself, which he demonstrably isnt.
Much of Plimers evidence may just be hokum but so is much of the IPPC material and the views of the in crowd of the so called scientists.
What an utter shambles–
What’s a shambles is too see someone like Plimer taken in utterly vile and evil anti-AGW propaganda – and making trivial errors. The book will appeal to denialist goons who’d get off on anything remotely anti-AGW. In the long run the book will have damaged his stature.
Deltoid has the oven cranked up and is roasting
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/sales_of_heaven_and_earth.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/reaction_to_ashleys_review_of.php
Malcolm is being wise to walk away quickly.
Cohers – the point being mate, is the pretension that the graph is curving over (and will continue to do so) on the right hand end (the future). When the left hand end itself would have demonstrated by history to be wrong.
Cohers – stats 101 – you’d don’t overfit curves to run through every point. Have a talk to Stewy ! Even your own mob will tell you that. If you’re going to be sceptical don’t just be utterly silly about it like Louis. Louis thinks a straight line is a maths trick (hahahahahahahaha)
Malcolm,
“Personally I dont think either the IPCC or Plimer, or the reviewer have made the case one way or another”
This is not a normal scientific dispute, my theory is better than your theory. We have been told that the science is settled, the time for debate is over. The implication is that the IPCC report is essentially correct in all respects, catastrophic global warming is happening now, climate scientists know all the relevant details of the mechanism and know how to fix the problem. Unfortunatey (they say) the fix will be hugely expensive but not follwing our advice will be catastrophic (according to Hanson, the end of creation, not just of humanity).
Plimer’s book should be judged as an attempt to refute these claims. I think he’s totally successful in showing the flaws in the IPCC position, in a way that allows anyone with a modest understanding of scientific principles to make up their own mind. The conclusion for me is that the case for dismantling modern industrial civilisation has not been made. Before we do that we need much better evidence than the IPCC provides.
“It is truly pathetic, and BTW par for the course with you people, just to say that he replying to Plimer on Plimers terms,as he is entitled to, as though that absolves the reviewer being credible himself, which he demonstrably isnt.”
If Plimer wants to publish a scientific paper, and he well knows that is the way to conduct scientific progress, he is free to do so. If on the other hand he takes the cowards way out like Kininmonth, Carter and others, and just appeals directly to the public and ignores the scientific process, there are ways of responding to that too.
The reviewer seems entirely credible to me, and he gives the reasons why Plimer is wrong quite cogently.
You are such an idiot SJT. Michael Ashleys article in the Australian could not be more ignorant. He just lies or in his ignorance assumes that science everywhere favours the global warming racket when in reality scientific evidence opposes it. If thats not enough to demonstrate his incompetence as a scientist he bases his whole argument on the bandwagon fallacy.
The editors of the Australian are really to blame here. They ought to throw the article back at any contributer in a science piece that is totally unwilling to make a valid argument as this moron Michael Ashley proved himself to be.
“SJT point to the co2 signal for me. Having a hard time finding it among all those wiggles.”
Do a linear regression, it will give you a good idea.
Prof Ashley says:
quite a scale – but nothing like the scale of the offhand remark made by Ashley in a previous para.
get a life! go and make scarey faces at someone else mate!
Luke,
In the midst of our ignorance about climate one thing we know is that it’s cyclical, not linear. So if you select any part of a cycle and fit a straight line you can predict catastrophic cooling (say, using 1940-1970 data, which was done around 1970) or catastrophic warming (say, using 1970-2000 data). Or anything in between. Agreed, high order polynomials are not the way to go if you intend to extrapolate. But neither are first order polynomials (ie straight lines).
Luke you have looked at the graph showing the UNSW research have you?
From 1884 to 1904 there were 6 positve IODs ,in the last 9 years there has been one, in the last thirty years there has been 5 +IODs, one less than that nine year period from 1885 to 1904, DUH.
The period from 1923 to 1949 ( 26 years) was by far the driest in SE australia with rainfall just nudging above the median line once in 1933 to 1934.
What I should have said yesterday was the IOD has been in the positive or neutral phase since 1992.
Taking a mid point from 1880 to 2009 as 1943 the -IODs measure more favourably for the later half and rainfall is more consistent, only in the last 17 has rainfall dropped to a level like 1933 to 1949.
Nowhere in this research is AGW stated as the cause of +IODs and the CSIRO were involved with the team.
,
Yes Eyrie, Michael Ashley is that idiot;
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/global_temperatures_have_levelled_since_el_nino_peak/
But rather fall into the ad hom cycle and since Ashley has some academic creds, perhaps Jennifer might consider a thread devoted to Plimer’s book.
luke; a polynomial is a method of correlating data between 2 fixed points; in the absence of noise it excludes far less data than a linear regression; a typical OHS linear regression is artifiical because, as we are told, nothing ‘natural’ montonically increases [except Gore’s bank account]; for instance, we are told by little will, as the proxy for such luminaries as the Deltoid cognoscenti, that it is perfectly reasonable for AGW heating to disappear on its inexorable upward trend and to even become colder as it becomes hotter; that being the case a linear regression is not the tool to show this because it will only show 3 options between the 2 points: up, down and flat as Ms Wong’s expression. For a realistic depiction of the correlation you need to round up more data; the higher order polynomials do that and that is why they are curved because in real life nature likes a curve more than a flat line; think of it as a group hug [polynomial] compared with the finger [linear regression]. The only disadvantage to a polynomial is that it may pick up noise, or irrelevant data like Gore’s jet exhaust; but since Spencer is using satellite data which is much more accurate than ground data from GISS and Hansen’s fiddling, there is no noise taint.
I’m sorry the third line above should read 20 years not 9.
BTW interesting to note on the graph that from 1880 to 1905 ( 25 years) there were no negative IODs, by far the longest period.
“luke; a polynomial is a method of correlating data between 2 fixed points; in the absence of noise it excludes far less data than a linear regression; a typical OHS linear regression is artifiical because, as we are told, nothing ‘natural’ montonically increases [except Gore’s bank account]; f”
Luke just pointed out the problem to you with the end points. If you look at the left, it heads off in completely the wrong direction.
The ignorance of what linear regression can and cannot tell is quite apparent in this discussion.
Luke and SJT,
A word of advice. NEVER extrapolate a trend into the future. Remember the stock market. Enrol in Stats 100, and see the article by Barbara McMahon in the Evening Standard, Feb 22, 1999 ‘Future Looks Bleak for Fake Fortune Tellers’.
Also see Article 365 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which discusses ‘Everyone who fraudulently (a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration (b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes or (c) pretends from his skill in knowledge of an occult or crafty science.’
I especially like the bit about an ‘occult or crafty science’.
I’m just wondering on the source data for the above graph. As it isn’t spelled out on WUWT, I went hunting around the UAH site without any luck. It looks like the 30N/30S graph, not the 75N/75S.
All I said is that the data show a linear upward trend. No extrapolation Davey. There is no stats justification for a 6 degree polynomial. Surely Davey you of all people would caution against overfitting the data …
Anyway Cohers – WTF – surely there’s something else more interesting than stats 101.
Of more interest in the building saga of real effects –
Hey decadal variability is changing
Intensified decadal variability in tropical climate during the late 19th century
Intensified decadal variability in tropical climate during the late 19th century
Toby R. Ault
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Julia E. Cole
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Michael N. Evans
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Laboratory of Tree Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Heidi Barnett
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Nerilie J. Abram
British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, UK
Alexander W. Tudhope
School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Braddock K. Linsley
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York, USA
To evaluate and extend the record of decadal climate variability, we present a synthesis of 23 coral oxygen isotope records from the tropical Indo‐Pacific that extends back to A.D. 1850. Principal components analysis (PCA) on detrended records reveals a leading pattern of variance with significant interannual (3–5 year) and decadal (9–14 year) variability. The temporal evolution and spatial pattern of this variability closely resembles the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) pattern across both time scales, suggesting that this decadal tropical variability is fundamentally related to ENSO. The 19th century experienced stronger decadal tropical climate variability, compared to the 20th. Decadal variability in the tropical oceans thus remains underestimated by analysis of direct observations.
Received 5 December 2008; accepted 23 January 2009; published 21 April 2009.
Citation: Ault, T. R., J. E. Cole, M. N. Evans, H. Barnett, N. J. Abram, A. W. Tudhope, and B. K. Linsley (2009), Intensified decadal variability in tropical climate during the late 19th century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L08602, doi:10.1029/2008GL036924.
So Cohers – add that to SAMy seal, STR, IOD, Walker circulation wandering – still sure things aren’t moving (As predicted!)?
You’d have to at least curious Cohers !! At least curious why all these effects keep piling up.
So let’s be clear denialist goons – it’s not about Al Gore, Flannery, Hansen – whether Wong is wrong, whether an ETS sucks
There’s plenty happening climate wise in the souterhn hemisphere to put anthropogenic climate change (vis a vis AGW) as a partial driver in what we’re seeing. To close your mind to the possibilities is frigging dumb. Keep on being sceptical but let’s not be stupid in that scepticism.
It seems we have a lot of people on this blog and in the media who have been able to read the Plimer book of 500 hundred pages and his 440 references in a week or so remarkable! It would seem that Plimer renowned as Australia’s leading geologist has suddenly lost it and become a rabble rousing dunce. These great critics will revere people who believe what they do and no one else. As far as I have read Plimer is saying we have deny all that we understand about geology and climate history in order to accept the AGW theory. I say to you all study what is known about climate history. Our arguments about what has happened in the last 30 years are a trivial waste of time. The climate has changed dramatically as far back as we can find data. Not long ago the Sahara was wet and at even shorter times ago the earth was much warmer than now. Some here have found salvation in linear regression. It is only the start point we arguing about. If I place it 2000 years ago then probably we are getting colder, 400 years then it’s getting hotter. What the hell does it matter!
It is sobering consider extreme weather events of the past and compare them to now it is delusional to say they are increasing. In my lifetime there has been nothing that comes close. The promoters of the AGW delusion show in an extreme sense their total gullibility and ignorance.
Since around 1800 it has been getting warmer I don’t know of anyone who denies it. A linear regression shows it has cooled for the last ten. I say so bloody what to both, 200 years is too short a period and so are ten. In the past there were many times when it was warmer than now and humanity thrived. Cold periods are times of great hardship let us hope it is not getting colder now. Let us hope the world does not get so cold that the Black sea freezes as has done many times in the recent past.
Neville
The IOD – La Nina sequence is exceptional – adding to one’s curiousity.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L08702, doi:10.1029/2009GL037982, 2009
How rare are the 2006–2008 positive Indian Ocean Dipole events? An IPCC AR4 climate model perspective
W. Cai, A. Sullivan, and T. Cowan
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,
Aspendale, Victoria, Australia
[1] The occurrence of three consecutive positive Indian Ocean Dipole (pIOD) events through 2006–2008, along with the unusual pIOD-La Niña combination in 2007, calls for a statistical assessment into the rarity of such events. To this end, we take 50 years from 19 climate models submitted for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment (AR4) to provide a 950-year realization. Only six models produce a total of nine pIOD-La Niña pairs, with one occurrence of three consecutive pIOD events. The rarity is not due to an overly strong model El Niño-pIOD coherence. Two models produce the 2006–2007 sequence of one pIOD with an El Niño followed by a pIOD in a La Niña year, however, no models simulate the observed mechanism. Although the triggering processes vary between models, a commonality is that the trigger resides in the ocean, highlighting the importance of subsurface ocean observations in predicting pIODs.
Received 4 March 2009; revised 4 March 2009; accepted 19 March 2009; published 18 April 2009.
“According to the Meyers et al. [2007] classification of pIODs, the only precedence in the instrumental record for a consecutive triple pIOD series occurred during 1944–1946, when the Pacific experienced neutral conditions, contributing to the most severe drought in Australia recorded to that date.
Based on the Meyers et al. [2007] classification, the pIOD-La Niña pair in 2007 is unique, although according to Behera et al. [2008], a pIOD and La Niña pair occurred in 1967.”
You would of course instinctively dismiss their modelling work to confirm the uniqueness but that’s not the point.
This idiot Luke he’s got this new scam. Everytime the science fraud is totally refuted he says something like “Desperate stuff” or “Clutching at straws”. What a moron. The argument from bluff.
luke, I’m not sure what this means [from the Ault et al paper];
“The 19th century experienced stronger decadal tropical climate variability, compared to the 20th. Decadal variability in the tropical oceans thus remains underestimated by analysis of direct observations”
Are they saying more extreme variability due to ENSO in the 19thC than the 20thC is due to some failure of either gathering or interpreting direct observational data? In any event if you want to toss me the links to the Ault et al paper and the latest Cai and Cowan effort on IOD I’ll have a look.
“Luke and SJT,
A word of advice. NEVER extrapolate a trend into the future. Remember the stock market. Enrol in Stats 100, and see the article by Barbara McMahon in the Evening Standard, Feb 22, 1999 ‘Future Looks Bleak for Fake Fortune Tellers’.”
Read the IPCC report, “understanding and attributing change”. They go into the observed changes, and how they can be attributed to the various forcings at work on the climate. It is entirely possible that photons will suffer a massive lapse in confidence, and refuse to be absorbed and re-emitted from CO2, but I think they will have the courage to carry on as usual.
“This idiot Luke he’s got this new scam. Everytime the science fraud is totally refuted he says something like “Desperate stuff” or “Clutching at straws”. What a moron. The argument from bluff.”
You are desperate and clutching at straws, Graeme.
Luke,
No, I don’t like polynomials either – definitely in the realm of fortune telling.
Luke the 1967 enso was neutral not a la nina and the IOD was negative not positive.
The year 2007 was really a neutral year at +3.35, neutral normally falling between -5.5 and +5.5 on the scale.
I certainly don’t accept your info because your basic (and I mean basic) research is totally wrong. I hope you understand this isn’t my opinion, the info is just wrong.
Luke, I am surprised at you. Don’t you remember the story I told you about George Washington and the cherry tree? He did a bit more than just picking them…
Davey ? If it’s Neville’s comment – it’s more than comprehensively answered in post above this one.
“Luke, I am surprised at you. Don’t you remember the story I told you about George Washington and the cherry tree? He did a bit more than just picking them…”
Have you read the report yet?
This dill Ashley is at it again in the Australian.
1. It has to be CO2 because that is the only variable that is changing rapidly. He should have added, of the variables that they have looked at, and employ in their models.
2. Model predictions are confirmed through many independant measurements of temperature and sea levels. But no comment about cause and effect, amd what else may be involved
3.If anyone disagrees, then they owe it to humanity to publish something in a peer reviewed journal. The usual retreat to authority– we cannot establish the case, so you should just accept any old crap we dish up, and ignore the flaws.
4. At least he has had the decency to acknowledge that Gore,( Nobel Prize winner-Yuk ), Flannery ( Australian of the Year- Yuk again) and Garbaut are, (like Ashley) not climate scientists either.
5. But no mention of the fraudulent and incompetent behaviour of Mann and Hansen etc , nor the misleading way the IPCC has gone about its business and sold it to the gullible masses and political opportunists.
What an absolute shambles.
Enhanced multidecadal climate variability in the seventeenth century from coral isotope records in the western Indian Ocean
Thomas D. Damassa
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Julia E. Cole
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Heidi R. Barnett
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Toby R. Ault
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Timothy R. McClanahan
Marine Programs, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA
The slowly growing coral Diploastrea heliopora affords a novel opportunity to obtain multicentury records of paleoclimate, including details of the interannual rhythms associated with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system. We examine climate variability in an ENSO-teleconnected region using new oxygen isotope records from D. heliopora, spanning most of the twentieth (1896–1998) and seventeenth (1622–1722) centuries, from the Mafia archipelago, Tanzania. The modern record demonstrates coherency with relevant instrumental and proxy time series, documents twentieth century warming, and displays significant power at ENSO periodicities. The seventeenth century record lacks any trend, exhibits interannual variance comparable to the modern record, and displays a pronounced interdecadal signal not evident in the twentieth century that correlates with other tropical and hemispheric climate records. We find no clear evidence of solar irradiance influence on interannual variability in the western Indian Ocean during these intervals, although the mean sea surface temperature appears to vary inversely with insolation.
“Appears to vary inversely with insolation.”
According to Luke’s champions, when the Sun gets up, the ocean gets cold, or visa versa.
Weird stuff.
What a great big unsubstantiated whinge.
(1) sceptic science is unpublished crap. I guess you believe in witchdoctors too.
“But no comment about cause and effect, amd what else may be involved ” hahahahahahahaha
I suppose Walker you would whole heartedly support this rabid nonsense from a major climate alarmist and truth distorter.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/13/2568746.htm
What a load of unsubstantiated rubbish indeed.
Yep pretty alarmist eh? I didn’t like it. But Ove does do good marine research.
Malcolm Hill,
I must lead a very sheltered life here in WA – I just don’t read or watch or listen to anything by the ABC. I know realise how much unsubstantiated rubbish I am spared, though reading Luke’s, SJT’s or their mates posts here balances it.
And you don’t read any science either. You’re under some illusion that your mates actually know something. hahahahahahahahahahahaha …. (the Galileo delusion complex)
SJT
“Tobias and Weiss (2000)
“It is clear that the resonance provides a powerful mechanism for amplifying climate forcing by solar activity.”
They put it better than my implied ‘rogue waves’
“I suppose Walker you would whole heartedly support this rabid nonsense from a major climate alarmist and truth distorter.”
If you went to the doctor and he said you had a skin cancer that needed to be removed or you would die, would you abuse him for being alarmist? There are times when alarm bells need to be rung. Rejecting any alarms on the principle that they are alarms is not at all logical.
SJT
You and Walker have the same puerile mentality.
If I went to a doctor andf he said something drastic, the first thing I would do, and any commonsensical person would do, is seek another opinion, do my own homework and then decide whether or not, I am going to act on the basis of the advice from one source, using one set of data.
It also depends upon the risks involved
In the case in question the auther has definite form, and his newest idiotic extrapolation,and exaggeration is just ridiculous.
BTW your analogy is also ridiculous. I have had skin cancers removed and it was a no brainer.
and no trouble. That cannot in any way be compared with what this clown is on about.
Joel Shore re Gavin Schmidt…”No…It is not sheer arrogance to say one is an authority on a subject that one has written countless papers on in the peer-reviewed literature”.
He’s an authority on the mathematics of computer models, that does not make him an expert on atmospheric physics. His degree is in math, not climate science.
If you want to buy into that virtual science, that’s you’re problem. Modelers like Hansen and Schmidt are making a fool of legitimate science.
“Aren’t you the one who fell for the G&T crap about the greenhouse effect violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics”?
You can’t even get the facts straight. It’s the quaint AGW notion that heat emitted from the surface can warm the incredibly rare GHG’s in the atmosphere to a temperature high enough to back-radiate heat and warm the surface more than it would be warmed by solar radiation, that contradicts the 2nd Law. G&T don’t even discuss back-radiation because it’s a crap notion that it has no significance. Even Bohren, a physicist and a meteorologists, thinks it’s an iffy argument. With respect to the GHE, I agree with them that the theory is not backed by physics. That’s all they said.
G&T contradicted the theory of the likes of Rahmstorf, a contributor to realclimate, who claimed the 2nd Law was not violated if the ‘net energy balance’ was positive. As G&T were quick to point out, the 2nd Law is about heat, not energy, and there’s no such thing in physics as a ‘net energy balance’, especially when applied to heat flow. The 2nd Law does not talk about energy balances, it talks about the transfer of radiation as heat between bodies.
I have yet to see one of you pseudo-scientists give a concrete rebuttal of the G&T paper. Eli Rabbett made a fool of himself trying and Arthur Smith made a feint-hearted attempt, using a simple model, to rebut them. The point to Smith’s model all came down to a leap of faith in which he asserted that CO2 ‘must be’ causing the warming. What kind of science is that?
You remind me of the type refered to by Foghorn Leghorn, when he claimed, “nice kid, but it went way over his head’. That’s what is happening with all you knee-knockers over at realclimate, you don’t have the basic physics to rebutt a paper written by real physicists, so you resort to ad hom attacks. You can’t even give a decent rebuttal to my arguments, never mind those of G&T. You’re what we call a big-girl’s blouse.
Oh boo hoo Robbo – you’re like a dog returning to its vomit. When G&T publish their AGW sinking masterpiece in either Nature or Science we’ll take some notice. Until then – they’re just deluded cranks like yourself. None of this shit ever gets seriously published.
What I want to know is can these models accurately predict present climate given past data? If they can then I’m sold.