Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Global Temperature Update to February 2013

By

“On average, global air temperatures were somewhat below the 1998-2006 average, although
with large regional differences…

“The global oceanic heat content has been rather stable since 2003/2004…

The above quotes and charts are from a monthly newsletter with global meteorological information updated to February 2013:

http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_February_2013.pdf

Compiled by

Ole Humlum, Professor of Physical Geography, Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Neville says

    There is a good discussion about the pause in warming at WUWT.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/29/the-puzzle-why-have-rising-temperatures-been-on-a-twenty-year-hiatus/#more-83095

    The OZ even has a story on the twenty year warming hiatus. Even Hansen and Pachauri accept there has been a pause, but are still holding to their theory.

    All govts should stop any new spending on so called AGW mitigation for at least another 20 years because it can’t make a jot of difference to temp or climate for hundreds of years at least. That’s if the theory is correct.
    So why the rush, we could be spending a small part of those wasted funds on adaptation and more R&D.
    If some new cheaper type or change of energy is discovered it would rapidly spread over the planet and perhaps fossil fuel use would be reduced at a faster rate? Who knows?

  2. Minister for Common Sense says

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html

    There was such fuss made over the number of deaths in ca2008 when there was a heat wave with many of the Deniers of Natural Change (DNC’s) shrieking from the roof tops that it was another example of co2 warming….so you had better watch out.

    But with freezing circumstances in Europe/UK and the many more deaths that have been caused by cold, I wonder how many of the DNC’s come will out of their hidey holes and say something. Nah not in their best interests to do that is it?

    Further I wonder whether any of the irresponsible funding agencies will make a grant available for somone to look at deaths from cold, versus deaths from heat etc

    Shouldnt be too hard, after all they could find money to fund Lewandowsky ($338k) et al to peddle more of his form of embarrassing academic twaddle …since withdrawn.

  3. Neville says

    Minister that is a good link to the Telegraph story explaining the 10 to one extra cold deaths to heat deaths that occurs in the UK.

    That is the study that Lomborg references in his book and he mentions it here in a previous article in the Telegraph.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4981028/Global-warming-will-save-millions-of-lives.html

    Indeed global warming would save millions of lives. But it is criminal that elderly people can’t afford the more expensive cost of electricity because of the fraud and con of AGW mitigation.

  4. el gordo says

    guffaw

    ‘The Met Office finally admitted yesterday that the forecasts it gave of ‘dry’ weather last year were ‘not helpful’.

    ‘But the organisation’s chief scientist still insisted two-thirds of its long-term forecasts are ‘very helpful’ – without specifying quite what that means for the other third.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301304/Our-2012-forecasts-feeble-admits-Met-Office-Organisation-says-predicting-dry-weather-helpful.html#ixzz2OyOwnGVi
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  5. Luke says

    Pause in warming – what an utter joke for increasing desperate wiggle watchers and faux sceptics who need to distract from the Arctic ice disappearing. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4074 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/25/frozen-spring-arctic-sea-ice-loss

    The real question is why the Atlantic Ocean has warmed so spectacularly during the last decades. Might need more than anecdotes and laptops to solve. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Lee_etal_2011_grl_amoc.pdf

    Unable to discuss mechanisms some are left looking at wiggles.

    It’s a double joke on sceptics – good reason for seasonal forecasts built on previous data to be playing up. THE CLIMATE HAS CHANGED ! expect the unexpected. Under your noses guys. Wakey wakey.

  6. Neville says

    Just a reminder about Matt Ridley’s talk on our fossil fuel use and the further greening of the planet.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7jgQni6jQ4

    Just proves how fortunate we are today to live healthier and longer lives because of our much higher standard of living and all brought about by the increased use of reasonably priced fossil fuels. Alas this is starting to change due to the mad green agenda.

    Don’t forget that the life expectancy of a person born in a 1900 first world country was only forty seven.

  7. Neville says

    Geezzz he’s back. Well Luke just have a look at Alley’s graph of the Holocene temps and tell us why Greenland is much cooler today.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg

    We are at the cool end of the Holocene and Antarctica had a warming spike a few hundred years ago. So what caused that warming I wonder?

    Seems that Luke expected the LIA to go on forever and wonders why Greenland has warmed slightly since. Have a look at the graph and wake up.

  9. el gordo says

    ‘The real question is why the Atlantic Ocean has warmed so spectacularly during the last decades.’

    Real scientists seek the null hypothesis, which appears to be natural variability.

    ‘The significance of the dates around 1978 and 1997 to climatic regime- shifts is not in dispute, as they are associated with a range of oceanic, atmospheric and climatic events, whereby thermocline depth anomalies associated with PDO phase shift and ENSO were transmitted globally via ocean currents, winds, Rossby and Kelvin waves…’

    Stockwell and Cox

  10. Robert says

    “the Arctic ice disappearing”
    “why the Atlantic Ocean has warmed so spectacularly during the last decades.”
    “THE CLIMATE HAS CHANGED ! expect the unexpected”
    To call this stuff anecdote is an insult to anecdote. Like all good factoidal material – what other kind does the Guardian know? – it’s true in one sense, false in another…and utterly pointless.

    By the by, I’m a total skeptic, which means that just because the greater warmings were earlier on in the Holocene, doesn’t mean that the present one has to dip down now in some “trend”. If it gets warmer…hit the beach. If the Arctic ice gets terminated, it’ll be back – to quote the Girlie Governor.

  11. Neville says

    Amazing we are living in a slight warming period after one of the coldest periods of the coolest interglacial in the last half a million years and we have warmists howling for it to be cooler still.
    I suppose we could laugh if it wasn’t so stupid.

  15. Luke says

    Neville runs the GISP core scam shot dead on the last thread. Typical denialist zombie recycling.

    The boofhead prize for Easter goes to fraud-ranter non-scientist Neville for “we have warmists howling for it to be cooler still.” – errr nope ! Could get a job on many police forces for verballing skills.

    El Gordo – Wattsy burger is a disinformation site. Why slum it?

  16. spangled drongo says

    “Neville runs the GISP core scam shot dead on the last thread.”

    The only thing Luke shot dead was his foot.

  17. Luke says

    Well you didn’t squirm out of it did ya? The ye olde don’t tell you what year zero scam is. How fraudulent.

  19. Neville says

    Luke you’re clueless. A real fact free zone on steroids. Just don’t mention simple kindy maths eh Luke?

    Here’s a good post from the Bolter highlighting some more of the cons and frauds and billions $ wasted on AGW mitigation. Result from Germany’s stupidity, 37 hours of warming postponed by 2100.
    I’m sure Luke thinks that’s a great investment, but then again Luke doesn’t have any common sense.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/more_millions_burned_on_the_warmist_altar/

  21. Minister for Common Sense says

    Thats a bit rich el-pukey calling someone a fraud when he acts as the spokesperson for the climate collective for super frauds, namely the Deniers of Natural Climate Change, DNCC’s, or donkeys for short.

    Keep them coming Neville, you do great job in showing just what crock of shit it all is.

    If the shonkademics and sundry UN etal nut jobs had started with a proper real world analysis and documentation of what problem are we trying to solve, and how does it rank up against all other areas of sensible investment and progress we could have saved billions…. and have had the readies to fix well known destructive matters of infinitely greater importance. included amongst wihch would have to be such minor things as getting rid of cane toads.

    But no they would rather plunder the public purse to pursue their too cosey relationship with greeny NGOs/UN/IPCC distortions of reality, and other idiot appendaged institutes in a contrived beat up against us mere mortals.

    But no we are forced to spend tax payers money chasing chimeras and idiocies such as that espoused by that academic nit wit Lewandowskyand his mates et al

    …..There is no shortage of examples..the list is endless.

    Just read what the clowns in the ARC and their equivalents elsewhere have funded

  22. Luke says

    Look at them rant. Get medicated for rabies. Caught out on the science. No answers but to make up graphs that don’t show the present. You utter frauds. And what are you doing about besides having a big sook Neville – NOTHING !

    Minsy for Donkeys – don’t be a such a blatant hypocrite – your natural climate variability science was discovered and undertaken by the establishment science. So why do you selectively believe it?

    Bolter just makes stuff up – why slum it around disinformation sites to feed your nasty little tea party political views. Get some decency. Don’t worry about the cane toads. Just licence Neville.

  24. Robert says

    It’s just impossible to get it across to alarmists that a bit of raw and sketchy knowledge about that “natural climate variability” – supposedly “discovered”! – is not settled science. The idea that rough observation sets can be spoken about as “mechanisms” tells one how completely unscientific many of these pretend scientists are.

    Ditch Publish-or-Perish. It’s inconsistent with scholarship and scholarly freedom which all collectivists fear instinctively. Even formerly distinguished journals are becoming childish political rags, not much better than the Guardian. More research, more wet-feet, more scientists, more science…we can afford it. But the shamans and data-torturers have to go.

  25. Luke says

    And what a filthy little libeler our Minsey is – what a creep – in fact ARC fund significant research into cane toads. But our rabid little clown couldn’t even be bothered to check the most basic facts. As usual mate you’ve been caught out simply repeating what others have told you to think – led around the pen with a ring through your nose. Try some statistics on high quality of ARC research and international impact. http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/pub_supported_research.pdf

  26. Luke says

    “Even formerly distinguished journals are becoming childish political rags, not much better than the Guardian.” what crap Robert – why – coz you THINK SO. What rot.

    Do some basic research on the scientists who have brought us modern undertstanding of ENSO and the IPO. Having a small brain fart shouldn’t be confused with facts. Robert you just continue to recite personal philosophical dribble with no basis. Why? You don’t study this stuff – you’ve said so. What would you know?

  27. Robert says

    Rough observations sets, produced by superb scientists, which should be the start of superb things. Instead…

    Acronyms used as buttons and levers on a kiddie console. Shameful. End this juvenile rubbish or kiss scholarship goodbye. Progressiveness without progress. Aspy thinking resulting in rubbish energy, rubbish conservation, rubbish development.

    Kick the neo-medievalists to the curb. Bring back thought.

  28. el gordo says

    The Guardian is the warmista bible.

    Did a Rossby wave alter our northern monsoon? Late start and late finish.

  29. spangled drongo says

    With all this “modern understanding” you talk about, can you quantify ANYTHING they have done with all our billions that gives evidence of ACO2-caused global warming?

    Just a simple statement in your own words. Shouldn’t be too hard.

    Doesn’t even have to be polite if that worries you.

  30. Minister for Truth says

    Naturally you nasty little parasitic creep you have missed the point.

    We are nearly 40 years down the track and they still dont have a solution….and the issue went for long periods with quite inadequate funding…shortage of funds I believe was the excuse.

    Secondly I dont have any issue with funding being given to worth while research in medicine and physics or whatever,but giving UWA funding to Lewandowsky so that he can indulge his contrived verbal fantasies against people who may be described as sceptics of the idiot dogma is an outrage

    …and more so when there is abundant evidence to show that in general, researchers who may want to inquire more into matters that may be at odds with the dogma …have great difficulty in being the beneficiaries of such largesse

    But they can waste money on Lewandowksy’s fantasies.!!!!!.what a joke you people are.

    BTW I disagree with Spangles above. Its not possible for a brainless amoeba to have feet ..the most they would have is a sucker… for obvious biological reasons of self preservation at the hosts costs.

  32. Minister for Common Sense says

    ” your natural climate variability science was discovered and undertaken by the establishment science..”

    So they discovered the bleeding obvious, and what got a Nobull prize for their efforts I bet

    Geesus that must have hard, I hope it didnt tax the poor dears too much.

  33. Robert says

    Guys, I’m in favour of big hits, especially on alarmists. They’re welcome to take big shots on me (which are pretty lame anyway). But, regardless of provocation, let’s dispense with “creep”, “filthy”, “parasite” etc. It’s been a great thread, but I’m moving away till that stops. Jen allows so much freedom here – let’s not abuse her hospitality.

  35. Minister for Common Sense says

    Robert,

    I agree, and for my part I apologise..but there are people on this blog who have form.

    Come to think of it, I have better things to do as well

    …doesnt mean I change my view about the scam that is global warming and the appalling waste of money and destruction of businesses and employment that has ensued..the case behind it all is a disgrace.

    Cheers

  36. Robert says

    Minister, I really do read your comments with interest – and how I share your frustration with “science” money flowing to people like Lewandowsky!

    When science is free again, there will be new Gilbert Walkers. Ultra-lightweights like Lew will have to drive taxis, or maybe dance in Hungry Beast videos, or do stand-up sketches with the funereal Rod Quantock. In the meantime, we have to wear it.

    Don’t want to seem preachy, and I hope you continue to hook in hard. My only point is that nobody here is scum, filth, or a parasite – even the guy who might call me those names.

  37. Luke says

    “So they discovered the bleeding obvious, and what got a Nobull prize for their efforts I bet”

    Well no numb nuts – it’s not obvious at all. It’s actually very difficult. And they didn’t get a Nobel. But the denialiti just looove natural climate mechanisms. Obviously your knowledge is so scant that you don’t even know the basics of this debate.

    And this would have to take the grand prize for poncey wanker rhetoric

    “Rough observations sets, produced by superb scientists, which should be the start of superb things. Instead…

    Acronyms used as buttons and levers on a kiddie console. Shameful. End this juvenile rubbish or kiss scholarship goodbye. Progressiveness without progress. Aspy thinking resulting in rubbish energy, rubbish conservation, rubbish development.

    Kick the neo-medievalists to the curb. Bring back thought.”

    What crap – tell us Robert has technology and science progressed. Oh I think the demonstration western civilisation might suggest so – with computers, molecular biology, space flight, chemicals, drugs, new machines might imply something is going right. I spit on your philosophical position and so does modern science.

    “Guys, I’m in favour of big hits, especially on alarmists.” Well I’m in favour of big hits on lying faux sceptics.

    (But Robert don’t mistake my passion for the debate as a personal attack. I’m just doing what you guys do but you can’t see it).

  38. Neville says

    Luke I’m sorry but I haven’t noticed any of these big hits of yours on people who believe in NATURAL climate change.

    As you know I think that there probably is some warming for a doubling of co2 emissions, but so what? 1C of warming isn’t a problem as far as I’m concerned.

    But please show us where the last 30 years or 100 years of warming is unusual or unprecedented compared to the rest of the holocene or previous interglacials?

    The holocene optimum was much warmer and produced higher SLs than today. Once again nothing unusual in today’s SLR at all.

    Hurricanes/cyclones, tornadoes, SLR, Polar bears, precipitation, droughts, floods seem to show little difference today than earlier last century.
    Of course polar bears have increased in number by a factor of at least four since the 1950s.
    5,000 in the 1950s and 20,000 to 25,000 today.

    Antarctica has increasing ice in the satellite era while the arctic has reduced from a high at the start of satellite measurement.
    Likely back to levels in the earlier twentieth century. Just about every iconic feature you can offer shows little cause for alarm at all.

    Don’t forget the Watson study showed a deceleration in SLR while the lastest Church etc study couldn’t be sure whether there had been much SLR during the last century or not.

    If you can’t show an acceleration in SLs how can we be experiencing dangerous AGW? The recent pause in warming also backs up this SLR problem ( for you) as well.

    Nearly all deaths from extreme weather events have shown falls over the last century as well.
    If you factor in the saving of human lives because of a slightly warmer world I’m at a loss as to what people are worried about.

    Probably the clincher is the fact that we are emerging from a minor ice age, so we can’t be sure whether the slight warming we’ve experienced isn’t natural warming at all.

  39. Robert says

    No offense taken, Luke. Especially from your wet-Sorbent slaps.

    Some confusion, Luke! You seem to think I have an objection to modern science, to computers, molecular biology, space flight, chemicals, drugs, new machines. What a muddle, Luke. We have to clear this up.

    Luke, my objection is to the new Lysenkoism which threatens modern science and which is centred on climate – for much the same reasons as the original Lysenkoism was centred on agronomy: collectivism.

    Hope that clears up your confusion.

    I’m told it was an Aussie, the amazing Charles Todd, who was among the first to note a connection between Indian monsoon conditions and Australian climate. I don’t know how he managed it among so many other achievements, but I’m confident God hasn’t stopped making ’em in that mould. Todd was too busy, and working with 19th century resources…but he had intellectual freedom. Then came Gilbert Walker.

    Suddenly we are back in an age of intellectual constriction, as far as climate is concerned. Someone is always copping it for free thought in some area that’s dogmatically sensitive. Kind of expensive, this climate hooey, but obscurantism always has been. Collectivism is at stake, so the collectivists will fight hard. (I won’t insult anyone’s intelligence and suggest that there is any serious interest anywhere in real-time/real-world emissions of GHGs. That would be laughable.)

    So, there’s some more philosophy – and some anecdotes! – for your salival ejections.

  40. Minister for Common Sense says

    Robert,

    “Scum” and” filth” are not my words, they belong exclusively to the other.

    I am guilty of using the word “parasite”, because thats what people who are ostensibly servants of the public become, when they call tax payers “scum” and “filth”.

    BTW the new book by Rupert Darwall will make fascinating reading as to the origins of this scam and why there is so much alarmist fanatacism involved.

    Thats for another day.

    Cheers

  42. Luke says

    “I am guilty of using the word “parasite”, because thats what people who are ostensibly servants of the public become, when they call tax payers “scum” and “filth”.

    Well has anyone personally called you scum and filth? Personally being yourself in reality not your alter ego. Perhaps your language or commentary generalising others who you haven’t met may have caused offence for which some retort was dispensed. In your style.

    Minsey each time I have asked you here to substantiate your accusations you have dropped the chance to hit it for six. You slagged off the entire ARC grant system on the basis of a small number of grants – perhaps actually only ONE you know about – you actually said they should be working on something useful like cane toads. Without knowing what they are working on. One topic being the said cane toads. I now expect you to move the goal posts by declaring that work to be of low quality to satisfy your waste fantasy.

    You see I just see it as slagging and whinging. But the worst sort – just fabricated generalism arising from your distaste for Lewandowksy.

  43. Luke says

    Oh look Neville is now asking some questions nicely. A gish gallop. With his favourite collection of memes.

    I only ask you one question Neville – when’s the last time you thoroughly read a scientific paper on climate science from GRL or JC.

  44. Luke says

    So Robert – tell us what we should do – the new Lysenkoism which is centred on climate. Sigh. Weally?

    How does one conduct research on matters of public interest. Let anyone have a go? Should there be any training? What standards would you set to evaluate research quality?

    How do you separate wanks from innovative heretical ideas.

    Sounds like you need a place on the ARC research board.

    Given your predilection for matters climate I thought you would already make a sweeping study and critique of such modernesque adventures – how would you assess some recent local modern research programs i.e. SEACI, IOCI and say the national Managing Climate Variability program. What would you score them and why? Surely you’d across such major investments?

    I will actually agree with you that much public environmental science is killed by the purchaser provider model whereby probably 20% is wasted on governance. But we must have governance and oversight I hear them cry. mmmmm or we could just back winners. Not sure anymore.

  45. Robert says

    Minister, Darwall looks interesting. When you consider crazed energy policies such as woodchips-for-Drax it’s hard to see anything but collectivism out of control. Brussels boffins (worst kind) determine “targets” and demand “outcomes”. Then Pommie boffins, under grim compulsion, develop local policies to meet the targets and achieve the outcomes – though the policies run completely counter to the original purpose. It’s about balancing economic waste against economic punishment. A few million trees and a few billions dollars later…

    Nev, that hockeystick is a hoot. When you think that we live on one little uptick in the Holocene, and that one little downtick and some dirty basaltic vulcanism like Laki is all it takes…

    Who brings a butter-knife to the gunfight of human survival? Our Green Betters – naturally!

  46. sp says

    At least its becoming harder to fool all of the people all of the time:

    Leading the attack is committee member Sir Brian Hoskins, who is also director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, London. In a blog on the Committee on Climate Change’s website, Sir Brian insisted: ‘The scientific basis for significant long-term climate risks remains robust, despite the points raised .  .  . Early and deep cuts in emissions are still required.’

    He also claimed our report ‘misunderstood’ the value of computer models. Yet in an interview three years ago, Sir Brian conceded that when he started out as a climate scientist, the models were ‘pretty lousy, and they’re still pretty lousy, really’.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301757/Governments-climate-watchdog-launches-astonishing-attack-Mail-Sunday–revealing-global-warming-science-wrong.html

  48. Luke says

    Robert ducks any real questions as usual. All hat no cattle.

    Neville – what the IPCC says is in their report. Graphs are part of the story. And don’t verbal me – cite when I have rantec about dangerous sea level rise. Quite good at verballing you are.

    The biggest threat is the movement of circulation systems that bring long-term drying trends to the sub-tropics – will displace millions. Of course you’ll be happy to wait and see. How’s your Mandarin?

    For GISP core lunatics http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210klarge.png

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA – you clowns

  49. Minister for Common Sense says

    Yes Robert

    From the reviews of Darwalls book that I have read, it appears it will be a ball breaker in more ways than one. I have it on order, and look forward to a good read.

    How the Brits could let their country be so severely hamstrung by the scarcity of energy supplies and higher energy prices just beggars belief.

    The elites in both countries are an absolute disgrace.

    Darwalls book may shed a little more light on the reason why, even though most people have a pretty good idea why it is so.

  50. Neville says

    Luke who are you trying to fool? Here is NOAAs Richard Alley GISP graph and it ends in 2000.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif

    You’ll note that it has the same ending temp in 2000 as the Alley graph that I linked to before from Wikipedia that ended in 1950.
    That’s because according to the Jones and Briffa etc study Greenland temp was the same in 2000 as it was in 1950.

    So what are you up to and where did you get that fabrication? Can we trust anything you say again? I think not, very funny indeed.
    Just proves how extreme some people are and how far they will go to try and prove a point.

  51. el gordo says

    Its obviously too early to say that global warming has stopped, but in Europe a regional winter cooling trend which began a decade ago, coupled with cool wet summers, means it has nothing to do with CAOs.

    ‘The icy Easter weekend has been declared the coldest in 100 years and forecasters have warned the cold snap will continue for the rest of the week.

    ‘Despite welcoming in British summer time, temperatures plummeted to -12.4C last night in Braemar in Aberdeenshire, while South Newington in Oxfordshire dropped to -5C.

    ‘The Met office confirmed it could be the coldest Easter Sunday morning in 100 years.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301851/Coldest-Easter-Sunday-100-YEARS-temperatures-plummet-12C-Britain-shivering-week.html#ixzz2P7JeOB7r
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  53. Luke says

    Neville – stupid beyond belief – Alley 2000 is the DATE OF THE PAPER silliness.

    ” I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.

    This is Easterbrook’s main sleight of hand. He wants to present a regional proxy for temperature from 155 years ago as somehow indicative of present global temperatures.”

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

    You could do well to read what Alley actually says “http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/” but you won’t coz you’re a bottom feeder.

    You are a complete shonk Neville. Someone who UNCRITICALLY sucks up every bit of faux sceptic rat droppings. And a serial verballer to boot.

    I honestly can’t believe how low your standards have dropped. Done like a dinner mate. Time for you to change the subject before someone notices.

  54. Neville says

    Luke I couldn’t care less what you think of me but I have never tried to cheat or present any deceptive evidence just to try and prove a point.

    At the moment I’ll take your word about your email from Alley, but the 1857 ending date is certainly something I’ve not heard of before.
    If I had info of that date I wouldn’t have ignored it.

    Can you please give me the origin of your other graph or at least a reference. Just a quick look at the graph doesn’t seem to compare much with Greenland temps from Vinther, Jones and Briffa etc I linked to.

    Lomborg’s team looked at the Vinther etc study and his graph shows that 1925 through to about 1960 were as warm as the temp in 2000. Page 83 “Cool It.”
    His graph also shows that the temp from the late 1960s through to the the 1990s was a much cooler period which rather disputes the theory of AGW.

    The temps he claims are probably linked to the NAO. I’m very interested in this but unfortunately I have a lot of work today, but I’ll be back in another day or so.

  55. spangled drongo says

    Neville, Luke is just blowing out his you-know-where as usual.

    If you do an honest version of the Michael Mann/Marcott hockey stick specials and attach the instrumental data to the end of Alley’s graph, the current GAT is still cooler than the MWP which is cooler than the Minoan WP etc.

    I have put this up a couple of times this week.

    BTW Luke, if you want a good scientific indicator on the state of climate change you could do a paper on all the adjustments, world wide, made by people who have to lengthen and shorten the pendulums of grandfather clocks as the climate cools and warms.

    That would be irrefutable evidence and much more accurate than thermometers.

    Just think of the fame you would win ☺.

    But maybe that’s just too much info and you really don’t want to know?

    Just rant?

  56. Robert says

    When you’re tempted to take these people seriously – or to doubt there’s a kind of Lysenkoism in operation – just remember the amounts of money given by the ARC to Lewandowsky. May not be as expensive, futile and laughable as woodchips-for-Drax or Timmy’s Geothermia, but the politics are so much more blatant.

    In twenty years time there may be some fine satire on all this (though not by dismal Melbourne comedy clubbers). Maybe we’ll get to giggle over a gang of mummy bloggers. some with tatts and all wearing the same Julia specs, forming a committee to make Lew Governor-General for life for his breakthrough work on the connection between moon landing deniers and hockey stick doubters. (They’re the cherry-pickin’ anecdotalist loops who think the Holocene Max and the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warmings actually happened – and not just sort-of happened.)

  57. sp says

    I think the public are becoming increasingly aware of the silliness of the warmist position.

    The warmists expanations for the lack of warming over about the last 15 years are becoming increasingly silly – the focus is now on minutae in order to shift the debate away from bleeding obvious – the rate of warming is trivial and the human part is neglible, there seems to be little or no relationship between CO2 and “warming”.

    The warmist response to the obvious is to become increasingly shrill – and to argue details – how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? – nothing more than a diversion, a smoke screen.

    Roll on the election – it may not rid us of this AGW pestilence – but it will be the beginning of the end.

  58. Luke says

    Spangled Done like a dinner. Neville is such a parrot. And you’ve been caught sprouting crap. Just like sp sauce. No warming. Pfft what a wank for deniers.

  59. sp says

    The deniers now are those that refuse to accept no warming for about 15 years.

    The new deniers now call facts a meme – but the simple fact is there has been no warming – even Hansen and the IPCC admit this – only the die hard new deniers dispute this fact.

    The new deniers will use ever increasing detail as smokescreen to hide the obvious – the models dont work and the “projections” fail in the face of reality.

    The new deniers are looking increasingly stupid to the average man on the street – the voter – and the voters have had enough.

    Roll on the election and the elimination of AGW and so called “climate science”.

    Its the sun stupid.

  60. Luke says

    The difference between sp and a computer. You only have to punch that data into the computer once. Lucia slaughtered your no warming stupidity as I posted last thread. Tell us how the sun is working doofus. Probably explains the Arctic melt – hahahahahahahahahahaha

    sp = silly trick with a silent p

    Licence faux sceptics not guns.

  61. sp says

    Mark Latham and the new deniers have a lot in common – they live in fantasy land.

    “The critical decade” – we must act now! The cry of the hard-sell salesman.

    Of course they want action now – because they know that all scams and ponzi schemes eventually come to an end.

    The new deniers are trying to suck the last few drops of blood from the AGW carcass – they have no shame. They know they are lying and doing damage to the economy – but they dont care – they just keep the AGW meme going – a retreat with some scorched earth policy thrown in.

    The new deniers will not go quietely and will do as much damage as possible on the inevitable way-out. Nasty

  62. spangled drongo says

    Just recently SBS had an alarmist story on their evening news about the Nile Delta, how it’s disappearing under SLR due to AGW, and how this cradle of western civilisation is doomed.

    All down to the West’s carbon emissions.

    The facts are that the area around the Nile Delta has had, like the rest of the world, SFA SLR but with many dams on the Nile now preventing the huge historical flow of silt which is starving the delta of its life blood, ever increasing population in what were always extremely low lying “polders” and a shoreline that is wide open to storms and erosion that are continually washing this loose silt out to sea, the land is simply disappearing and being replaced by the Mediterranean.

    I mentioned this to SBS but I won’t hold my breath waiting for a retraction.

    http://mediterranee.revues.org/2282#tocto1n2

  64. sp says

    The new-denialist strategy – tell a lie, make it a big lie and tell it often (just like Goebells) – deny, delay, obfuscate.

    The laguage used by the new-deniers gives the game away: pause, standstill, lull.

    It has been pointed out that “pause” is a misuse – it is an evidence free implication that the current trend will automatically revert to warming.

    It could get warmer, or colder, or just flat-line. Nobody knows with any real certainty.

    Except for the new-denialists, who are certain we are all doomed (evidence free certainty of course) unless we decarbonise and reduce our footprints.

    At first the warmists said it would take 15 year for a “valid trend”. When that past it became 17. Now they say we need 30-40 years. But the warmists based their initial claims on less than 15 years of data.

    Who can believe these people? They have no shame and will lie to protect the cause – Prof Lew and Gleick to name a few.

  65. spangled drongo says

    “As a consequence of this artifical water diversion and reduction and associated phenomena (locally increased coastal erosion, pollution, salinization), the Nile delta has now entered its destruction phase, i.e. the former depocenter has been altered to the extent that it is no longer a functioning delta but, rather, a subsiding and eroding coastal plain.”

    A depocenter is the site of maximum silt deposit.

    But the “destruction phase” is otherwise known as SLR. [koff]

  66. Johnathan Wilkes says

    spangled drongo,

    Must be coincidence but we were discussing the Aswan dam yesterday.
    Quite apart from the loss of historical artefacts and the displacements of millions of
    people to far less fertile lands losing their cultural heritage as well as their land, there is
    the loss you mention.

    If you go into it in more detail you’ll find, the added cost of fertiliser now used because of the
    silt being deposited on the bottom of Lake Nasser instead of fertilising the land as before.

    Typical example of “it looked like a good idea at the time” Of course nobody will admit to that.
    They say Look at the electricity produced!
    Big deal, it could have been produced at half the cost by conventional means.

    As to Luke? I’m at a loss really, can’t he admit being wrong even some of the time.
    Strange.

  67. el gordo says

    “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

    Leo Tolstoi

  68. el gordo says

    ‘The first principle is that you must not fool yourself … and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.’

    Richard Feynman, Cargo Cult Science, 1974

  70. Luke says

    How to spot someone with rabies “(just like Goebells) – deny, delay, obfuscate.” get medicated sp and seek professional help. Watching sp is like watching constipation – straining oh so hard for some confirmation bias on something he read on a disinformation blog. But not getting anywhere. He/she/it doesn’t know what it means but sp wants to be in that tribe. Think’s he’s/she’s/its onto something. hahahahahaa

    Now the stupid little turd is unable to read a statistical analysis of trend which says there is a significant trend (and hardly an AGW advocate either). So who’s obfuscating?

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/jail-time-for-noticing-its-warming-good-lord/

    poor little sp sauce – unable to read…. but so good at ranting

    It’s a fascinating exercise in psychology all this – cherrypicking, verballing, demanding apocalyptic trends instantly as proof, pitching short term wiggles as meaning something.

    For years screaming this is it ! this is the game changer yet you’re all still here. ROFL.

    Fascinating.

    P.S. El Gordo – what Feynman said also applies to you !

  75. spangled drongo says

    But I suppose you do realise Luke, that in spite of Foster’s waffle GLOBAL sea ice area is currently nearly half a million sq km ABOVE average?

  77. sp says

    Meanwhile the team is still playing hockey sticks:

    Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

    A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/fixing-marcott-mess-in-climate-science.html

  78. cohenite says

    luke are you really saying that GISP2 ice core records, or indeed any ice core record, finishes in 1855; or that Alley choose to base his study on an 1855 date; if the latter what do the ice core records show after that date?

  79. spangled drongo says

    “Steady as yer go…. February number is up”

    EG, don’t you mean down? ☻

  86. cohenite says

    Leave Neville alone luke and answer the question; and this:

    “One of the last comments to my “100 years of warming” post suggested that the GISP2 “present” followed a common paleoclimate convention and was actually 1950.”

    Why is it a “convention” to have 1950 as the “present” luke; think divergence.

  87. el gordo says

    From Luke’s link…

    ‘If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred.’

    Nature fights back and temperature stalls? There has been no warming, so I’ll need more evidence that there will be an uptick soon because a plunge in temperatures is more likely.

    Tasmania had its hottest March on record… just sayin’

  88. el gordo says

    Jo Nova on weather ballooning…

    ‘The IPCC are an abject lesson in how to hide a message in plain sight

    ‘In the new report they have dumped their former fingerprint predictions which looked so definitively and technical, but proved to be so wrong. However they will not join-the-dots. They won’t admit this is a major point their models have failed on, instead they flat out deny the results from 28 million weather balloons are conclusive.

    ‘In a sense, in AR5, the IPCC just throws up it’s hands and says “yes ok, the models don’t align with the data, but the data might be wrong, and rather than fix those models, we’ll quietly dump that test and the awkward results and pick a different set of inconclusive tests instead. It’s known as shifting the goal-posts. ” It’s what any rational weasel-grade bureaucrat would do if their job and their junkets depended on it. You can hardly blame them…’

  89. Luke says

    It’s not surprising that top layers may not be useful. It’s a year 2000 paper. The data are of the authors description so take it up with him. Stop your typically smear tactics and make with the email.

    Faux sceptic drongos have continued to misrepresent this work. It’s is “A” site for a start. And the graphs do not extend to the current day. But fits your fetid agenda to suddenly feign concern doesn’t it.

    Neville doesn’t read and he keeps asking. He’s been answered twice now.

    El Gordo is like a denier zombie. RTF post from Lucia above. Another denier unable to read. But I guess Zombies don’t read a lot eh?

  90. Luke says

    “28 million weather balloons are conclusive” yep ! measuring what, where, how with what instruments packages packed how? If Anthony Watts does temperature tests on different painted screens it might make you think.

    What about 576 billion sand grains. Oh such a big number.

    Just the warmists had to sort out Spencer’s satellite data bungle.

  92. cohenite says

    “It’s not surprising that top layers may not be useful.”

    Ha, ha; tell that to the Hockey Stick devotees.

    You don’t know why 1950 is the present do you.

  93. Luke says

    No I don’t know dear faux sceptic turd. Don’t try and weasel out of your fetid mates misrepresenting the research. What an arts student know about science anyway? But it is his data. Why don’t you ask him. That would be novel.

  94. Luke says

    Gee how exhausting – maybe unpublished arts grads can’t Google. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=HrNwdRj1ehoC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=why+is+1950+the+present+in+GISP+cores&source=bl&ots=Dlz3od38od&sig=cdQpaGGKlESdSSkJ-1u-7n-e2V4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K6VaUbLTLemaiAeerYCYAQ&ved=0CGQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=why%20is%201950%20the%20present%20in%20GISP%20cores&f=false

    But I’m sure there’s a scandal in there. Why don’t you get the self-appointed McIntyre to investigate?

  96. cohenite says

    Here’s the thing luke, your link critiquing Easterbrook says this:

    “Easterbrook’s basic argument relies on using temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures.”

    Either you believe the ice cores maintain their integrity from the youngest/shallowest to the deepest/oldest or you don’t; if you accept they do and that the ice core record is an accurate proxy for the past then the most recent ice cores are just as accurate. Those modern ice cores all show a divergence with the instruments, especially after about 1950.

    Why? Who knows. But the tactic of avoiding that elephant in the room is just another shonk of AGW.

  97. sp says

    A bit of robust discussion is one thing. The use of foul, vulgar and insulting language is another.

    But I guess some need to resort to this sort of behaviour because their arguement is weak.

    A tendency to present more and more detail in order to obfuscate is just a tactic to avoid answering questions.

    Easier just to spew insults.

    Juvenile.

    I would like to know “why 1950 is the present”.

  99. cohenite says

    From luke’s 2nd link:

    “The year, 1950, was an arbitrary reference point chosen to avoid the problem of constantly having to update and recalculate dates as time marches forward.”

    But this avoids the issue; all proxies, ice cores, tree rings etc, require reconstruction of the data to account for inherent time based variations; it’s an art as much as a science and can be confounded when the method of reconstructing the past is discarded with modern proxies; this in a nutshell is what AGW, particularly the Hockey Stick shonks, have done; they have replaced their modern form of the reconstruction they used on the past proxy data with instrument data; the trick is explained here:

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%e2%80%99s-nature-trick/

    This really is a scandal; basically it means either the past, as interpreted by the AGW reconstruction methods, is unreliable and the present is right or vice-versa; in either event the comparative basis between an alleged cooler past and a warmer present is dubious.

    The 1950 ‘present’ convention is a red herring as is the criticism of Easterbrook.

  101. sp says

    In recent years there have been a number of cases in which high-profile papers from climate scientists turned out, on close inspection, to rely on unseemly tricks, fudges and/or misleading analyses. After they get uncovered in the blogosphere, the academic community rushes to circle the wagons and denounce any criticism as “denialism.” There’s denialism going on all right — on the part of scientists who don’t see that their continuing defence of these kinds of practices exacts a toll on the public credibility of their field.

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/

  102. Luke says

    What a bunch of stupid deniers. Anyone with half a brain would know that until the firn compacts air circulates so you can’t get right to the surface. Lost on pretentious arts grads and right wing loons. The 1950 standard has been around for a long while with good reason. But unpublished arts grads know better. Pullease.

    There is no getting away from Easterbrook’s bunk. And you all fell for it. Fancy in your desperation now trying to change the goal posts. What wankers.

    Done like dinners guys. Better start a diversion quick.

    (sp – frankly mate you are clueless beyond measure – get off the blog)

  103. sp says

    Warmists have no problems with failed predictions or papers – they just rapidly move to the next headline grabbing paper or prediction, with ever more complex arguements to hide the simple truth – the complexity of warmist statments are inversely proportional to truth. The more they say the harder it is to believe.

  104. cohenite says

    “Anyone with half a brain would know that until the firn compacts air circulates so you can’t get right to the surface.”

    That’s not right luke; NASA uses modern ice core samples to show the current level of CO2 is more than it has been ever; so if the modern ice cores are ok for CO2 concentrations why aren’t they good for temperature?

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

  105. sp says

    Thank you Cohenite. Interestingly the NASA page also contained this:

    “Scientific Consensus

    Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”

    Wonder how they estimated the 97%?

  106. Luke says

    WHAT !! Is that actually a real question ??

    “This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements”

    “AND MORE RECENT DIRECT MEASUREMENTS” Do you ever read your own cites?

    Gee deeers duh palaeo data and duh modern observational data. Whoda thought?

    This is getting to high farce. Don’t you really mean “we’re very sorry that we didn’t know Easterbrook reported on data that doesn’t go to the current day. We apologise and we will now try not to be so devious in future discussions – we have no excuse”

  107. Neville says

    Interesting post from Ross McKitrick that explains the cribbed adjusted nonsense of the Marcott paper.

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/

    Also as I mentioned here a number of times the warming from the Younger Dryas was much faster than anything we have seen for 11,500 years.

    In fact the warming in Greenland was a rate of 10 C in just ten years. Yet Marcott claims our present warming is the highest in 11,000 years.
    What fudged nonsense our present warming over the last 100 years is about 0.7C or 0.007C a year or 0.07C a decade and at the end of one of the coldest periods of the Holocene.

    Of course now Marcott and backers are saying that the fudged and late adjusted proxie are not robust.
    How much longer can this be tolerated and when will the study be withdrawn?

  108. Neville says

    Some very heavy hitting from luke warmer Roger Pielke jnr. Comment 6 on his Marcott post.

    Roger Pielke, Jr. said…
    -5-charlesH

    Thanks … to be honest my “skepticism” of climate science hasn’t changed much over the years — if you read Chapter 1 of TCF I have a lot of time for climate science, and I interact with climate scientists just about every day (being in CIRES, a leading global institute). There are an awful lot of people doing very good work.

    There are a few bad eggs, with the Real Climate mafia being among them, who are exploiting climate science for personal and political gain. Makes the whole effort look bad.

    That said, virtually all of the climate science battles are teapot/tempest affairs — climate politics and policy has moved on to issues involving economics and energy.

    Thanks …

    The Real Climate bad eggs are like a climate mafia, “who exploit science for personal and political gain.”
    I couldn’t have said it better, what corrupt and disgusting people they are. Don’t forget the discredited Michael Mann personally endorsed this new Marcott hockey stick con trick.

  109. Neville says

    Just to remind everyone that the latest study of the Greenland temps during the much warmer Eemian showed it to be 8C wamer than today.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/24/first-complete-ice-core-record-of-last-interglacial-period-shows-the-climate-of-greenland-to-be-significantly-warmer-than-today/

    So between 130,000 to 115,000 years ago temps and SLs were much higher than the so called AGW temps of the late Holocene.

    Just shows that natural climate change can produce a much more extreme interglacial when only a tiny population of primitive humans existed on the planet.

    So what caused the much warmer Eemian and why is it so much cooler today?

  110. el gordo says

    ‘So what caused the much warmer Eemian and why is it so much cooler today?’

    My guess … the Younger Dryas acted as a damper on rising temperatures in the Holocene.

  111. Neville says

    EG you may be correct but why did the forcing in Greenland change so much and in such a very brief period? Ten degrees in 10 years is incredible.
    We do know that the Holocene optimum had higher temps than today because sea levels were much higher even as recently as 4,000 years ago.

    BTW the C Commission is at it again and Will Steffen etc is leading the charge.. Great to see the Bolter pounce on this stupidity and remind us what Steffen said on the Bolt report just two years ago.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/more_spin_from_the_climate_commission/

    I think what Pielke jnr said about the Real climate Mafia inmates should apply to our Commission as well. Their ABC are hopeless promoters of this rubbish because they want to help the liars in their ALP.

  113. Neville says

    The explanation given here for the younger Dryas is the large fresh water melt upsetting the weakened thermohaline circulation and causing the big drop in temp.

    But an even bigger later melt didn’t cause this drop because the TH circulation had strengthened.
    Amazing the temp on the graph doesn’t seem to show any reduction at all from the second big melt.
    I still can’t understand when a warmer planet’s higher snowfall accumulation drops below the increased melt from that same higher temp?
    When does that cut off point occur? Must be maths and physics in there somewhere.

  114. el gordo says

    ‘EG you may be correct but why did the forcing in Greenland change so much and in such a very brief period? Ten degrees in 10 years is incredible.’

    The only explanation is that a very large rock fell out of the heavens.

  116. el gordo says

    According to Dr Norman Page there will be a ‘significant temperature drop at about 2016-17’

    Hmmm …. a tipping point?

    He has a guest post at Watts.

  118. el gordo says

    Correction: Not on the Younger Dryas period, it was at the beginning of the Holocene … even more fascinating.