Der Spiegel Online: stagnating temperatures a puzzle

Stagnating Temperatures

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

By Gerald Traufetter


 

ddp

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.

Reached a Plateau

The planet’s temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,” confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. “There can be no argument about that,” he says. “We have to face that fact.”

Read the complete article here

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News. Bookmark the permalink.

152 Responses to Der Spiegel Online: stagnating temperatures a puzzle

  1. Jari says:

    Der Spiegel

    REPLY: Fixed Thanks

  2. Icarus says:

    “Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years

    Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.”

    Clearly none of this is true -

    https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechange/yvtayto200

    Nothing in the last ten years looks like any change at all from the warming trend of around 0.2C per decade. Just look at the data.

    Now, perhaps in 10 years’ time, if we haven’t seen any new record high global average temperatures, you could legitimately claim that there has been a significant change to the warming trend, but right now there is no difference at all between the last ten years and any other ten year period you care to choose in the last several decades. There is just the normal interannual variation superimposed on the warming trend. Again – just look at the data.

  3. Rereke Whakaaro says:

    This report is totally bogus.

    It has obviously been contaminated by human observations.

    The models did not predict this. It is therefore impossible.

    /sarcasm

  4. plazaeme says:

    “Spiegel”, please.

  5. Rudolf Kipp says:

    Here in Germany we are wondering as much as you are. The Spiegel (by th way, you misspelled that) is for decades now known as the #1 organ for AGW-horrorstories. Everybody here remembers the infamous 1986 front-cover showing the Cologne-Cathedral in 50 meters of water (Cologne is about 220 km away from the coastline, 53 m above sea level).

    For many years now, the Spiegel was the court reporter of the PIK and Rahmstorf. This quite open criticism is something really new. Read here a short essay about “Rahmstorf and the Mirror: the end of a marriage?

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    Natural climate variations cause warming. The issue is not “whether or not” there is warming. Natural climate variations are nowhere near sufficiently understood, which is why modelers base probabilities & other measures of statistical significance on untenable assumptions of randomness.

    One sensible option is to stop conflating issues.

  7. RR Kampen says:

    Laughable article. It is like saying on the first of July that ‘summer has stalled’ because of a couple of cool, rainy days :)

    I guess it is forbidden to mention the dip in the solar cycle and the big Niña. I mean, those put 2007 and 2008 only just in the top ten warmest years instead of having them bust the record (without global warming they would have belonged to the 20% coldest, of course).

  8. Ron de Haan says:

    The collapse of the AGW House of Cards is going main stream now.
    On top of that we now wait for the impact of the ‘”leaked” Hadley CRU data which will pull the rug from under the the scientific establishment that abused science for political objectives.
    Watch them and their cronies jump the sinking AGW Titanic that just hit a monster ice berg.
    Politicians and Corporate CEO’s are allergic for any involvement or association with high profiled public scandals.
    Hopefully the honorable members of the press are able to identify this “Golden” opportunity to restore the integrity of the free press and raise the circulation numbers of their battered media by revealing the biggest scientific, political and economic scam in history to the public.

    This scientific scam if it comes out big has the potential to cancel the Copenhagen Climate Conference and trigger an official investigation of unprecedented proportions and a flood of claims.

  9. RR Kampen says:

    Re: “Natural climate variations cause warming. ” – ah, so warming has no causes at all. Just happens.

  10. Reinhard Bösch says:

    This is a real turnaround. Not only that ” Der Spiegel” is Germany`s most respected political magazine. This very guy Mojif Latif must have had a Saulus-Paulus experience. For so many years now whenever there was a bit of stronger rains or floods or hot weather, you could be sure to see him appearing in public television,predicting that all these events where just the first signs of a catastrophic global warming if we not…… And I don`t think he would careless risk his splendid position. There must be a wind of change among his colleagues.

  11. Mr. Alex says:

    “The planet’s temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. ”

    Wait a minute, isn’t that supposed to be 0.7 degrees from 1900 to 2000?
    1900 – 1940 = 0.4 degrees
    1970 – 2000 = 0.3 degrees

  12. NastyWolf says:

    Icarus (00:13:10) :

    “Nothing in the last ten years looks like any change at all from the warming trend of around 0.2C per decade. Just look at the data.

    Again – just look at the data.”

    Really?

    You should take a look at what the satellites tell us:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:1/offset/from:1980/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2010/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1980/mean:1/scale:1

    Clearly only 1990′s was the decade of rising temperatures.

  13. Nonoy Oplas says:

    Germany hosted at least 2 of the series of global meetings by the UN FCCC this year prior to Copenhagen. Which means the German government is among the top promoters of “cut carbon emission deep, or we’ll be doomed” thinking. This analysis in Spiegel should throw some sanity in the minds of the German government’s climate negotiators.

  14. Juraj V. says:

    It looks that after all, climate scientists have invented the wheel, or recognized that oceanic cycles have effect on global temperatures in multidecadal scale.
    It is shame that amateurs, bloggers and WUWT commenters recognized it before the peer-reviewed scientists did.
    I loved recent quote from some “leading climate scientist” from Met or CRU: “We are puzzled and have no explanation for this [temperature stagnation].” I would propose that gentleman to give the diploma back and start doing something completely different.

  15. Spen says:

    ICARUS – I am simple sole whose understanding is that global warming is caused by increasing C02 concentration in the atmosphere. C02 levels have continued to rise over the last 10 years but temperatures have not. The conclusion must be that there are greater natural forces masking the greenhouse effect. These effects are not reflected in the models therefore the projections are suspect. Nevertheless governments across the world are proposing to spend billions on unproven premises. The world may be getting warmer but even Al Gore hasn’t suggested it will make us go mad.

  16. Steve Schapel says:

    Paul,

    If the models predict warming, and there is no warming, then the models are wrong. Therefore, it seems to me that “whether or not there is warming” is important.

  17. Martin Mason says:

    Fantastic Icarus, an AGW hockey stick and based on the others patently false. Weather watching and cherry picked data, start and end dates and curve fitting I’m afraid. Just listened to peer reviewed science please. The planet is cooling and it can’t do this if AGW is either not true or absolutely dominated by natural variations. The house of cards is collapsing, and never has there been anything so sweet in life.

  18. Espen says:

    Icarus: Yes, look at the data, but don’t conveniently start your graph in 1949 as you do.

  19. LarryOldtimer says:

    When so-called “scientists” cook the data, adding or subtracting (“adjusting”) temperatures at will, no one really can know what the temperatures or temperature changes might have been.

    No “scientific method”, no science. Refusing to release actual temperature measurements, actual computer codes which were used to “adjust” the actual temperatures which thermometers indicated, no effort to even consider “margin of error”. . . refusal to release much of anything as to how they came up with the “temperatures” after the “adjustments” . . . all strongly indicative of complete lack of scientific method, which means no real science going on.

  20. Joseph in Florida says:

    At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

    Why should we trust a weather prediction from these people? The man-made-we-are-all-burning-up people have made any weather predictions nearly impossible in the modern age. I read that the British predictions are laughable these days.

  21. Chris P says:

    “Nothing in the last ten years looks like any change at all from the warming trend of around 0.2C per decade. Just look at the data”

    Good idea, just look at the data.
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

  22. Spector says:

    In my opinion, the real issue is “Do we have a Carbon-Dioxide Crisis?” The problem, as presented, is that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dangerously near a “tipping point” where it will cause a run-away greenhouse effect cooking the planet. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT claims to have measured data that proves this is not true.

    I believe the IPCC computer models all assume our climate is like an overloaded, top-heavy ship dangerously close to the point where the slightest additional weight will cause it to tip over. Dr. Lindzen says his measurements show this is not true — we have a situation more like the self-correcting case where the center of gravity is well below the center of buoyancy. It appears, however, that the mainstream press regards this to be a crackpot study not deserving any serious mention.

    I believe that questioning the reality of global warming, man-caused or otherwise, is a distraction — the real question is “do we have a dangerous carbon-dioxide crisis?”

  23. vukcevic says:

    Paul Vaughan (00:42:33) :

    The two main constituent water masses of the North West Atlantic water circulation are: the deep warm water current, branching of North Atlantic Current in the Nordic Seas, and the Labrador Sea cold current (see http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SubpolarGyre.gif ).
    These two currents tightly govern the strength of the North Atlantic Gyre and via it global ocean circulation and the associated heat transport across the North Atlantic Ocean.
    It has been shown that if relationship of these two water masses is altered (changes in the Labrador Sea cold current) is a significant contributor to the global climate change.
    Labrador Sea cold current is made from contributions of flows through Denmark, Davis and Hudson Straits. They form part of a current, known as the Subpolar gyre. Computer models have shown the slowing and speeding up of the Subpolar gyre can influence the entire ocean circulation system.
    Warm water of the Gulf Stream runs northward through, turns westward near Iceland and the tip of Greenland. The current loses heat to the atmosphere as it moves north. After cold Labrador Sea winters, the water in the current becomes cold, salty and dense, plunges beneath the surface, and heads slowly southward back to the equator. The cycle is extremely sensitive to the buoyant fresh waters flowing out of the Hudson Bay and the Arctic Ocean.
    Change in the parameters affecting inflow of fresh waters through Hudson and Denmark Straits are shown on this graph:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SubpolarGyre.gif
    (work in progress)

  24. Richard Heg says:

    I am looking forward to the day when news paper editors realise that you can sell more newspapers with real reporting on this subject than propaganda.

  25. Stefan says:

    Again I ask people on both sides, why is 30 years significant? Why is it not 0.3 or 3 or 30 or 300 or 3000 or 30 000 or 300 000 or 3 000 000 ?

    I must apologise, as people have kindly tried to answer this before but I’ve never understood the answer.

    The graph linked above covers 1945 – 2005, or just two intervals of 30 years. Just two. But it is referred to as a “trend”.

    You know if you stand far enough away you can’t see the difference between a triangle, a square, and a circle. They are all just blobs.

    Unless someone has a concrete, real world justification for 30 years as the minimum period for “climate”, y’all are just turning everything into blobs, and arguing over whether that blob you see is a square or a triangle.

  26. Butch says:

    This doesn’t seem to have baffled Dr William Gray, our foremost hurricane forecaster. In March 2008 he stated:

    “We should begin to see cooling coming on,” Gray said. “I’m willing to make a big financial bet on it. In 10 years, I expect the globe to be somewhat cooler than it is now, because this ocean effect will dominate over the human-induced CO2 effect and I believe the solar effect and the land-use effect. I think this is likely bigger.”

    He seems to hold a high opinion of Dr Hanson as well, calling him “the most egregious abuser” of data. According to Gray, Hansen’s alarmism is exaggerated because the models he uses to predict the increase in global warming count on too much water vapor in the atmosphere.

  27. J.Hansford says:

    RR Kampen (00:49:21) :

    Re: “Natural climate variations cause warming. ” – ah, so warming has no causes at all. Just happens.
    ——————————————————–

    Being obtuse are we?…. Clearly the context is between natural mechanisms involving global climate changes and that of anthropogenic global warming as per the flawed Hypothesis of AGW….

  28. M White says:

    “Why should we trust a weather prediction from these people? The man-made-we-are-all-burning-up people have made any weather predictions nearly impossible in the modern age. I read that the British predictions are laughable these days”

    http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews09No87.pdf

    Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist of WeatherAction gives the latest developments around the WeatherAction Red Weather Warnings driven by WeatherAction’s Solar Weather Impact Periods (SWIPs) of 11-13 Nov & 17-19 Nov (dates to within a day from about 100 days ahead and re-confirmed mid Oct)

    WeatherAction key extreme event forecast statements – and comments so far – in double-storm periods 11-13 Nov (‘prelude’) & 17-19 Nov; as in issued forecasts:
    - for damaging winds; deluges; thunder/tornado risk; and coastal flood risk in Ireland, Britain & Scandinavia & Benelux (espec Holland) .
    - and specific forecasted extreme events around the world 17th-19th Nov

    By no means perfect but given the weather Britain has had over the past week or so not bad, especially if the forecast really was made 100 or so days ago.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8369934.stm

  29. Ron de Haan says:

    RR Kampen (00:49:21) :

    “”Re: “Natural climate variations cause warming. ” – ah, so warming has no causes at all. Just happens””.

    RR kampen,
    We have just been offered a peek into a “criminal conspiracy” cooking up our climate data in support of AGW. And here you are, bud naked by a total lack of scientific arguments preaching your warmists believes. Isn’t it frustrating to see your entire thermogeddon doctrine collapsing?

    Climate drivers:
    Our sun, our oceans and our volcano’s. That’s it.
    We are just a spec on the bud of an elephant.

  30. JamesG says:

    Kampen
    What’s laughable is trying to invoke a solar downturn after spending years saying the effect of the sun was minimal and declining anyway. What’s laughable is invoking the cooling part of the pdo/enso cycling and neglecting to notice that the warming part of that same cycle was previously attributed to an amplified CO2 effect. If you’re going to just make things up, at least be consistent!

    I found it particularly ironic that the previous scare story was based around a diminishing natural variation leading to ever-increasing CO2 domination as predicted by simplistic models and now that the models are falsified the team suddenly rediscover natural variation exists after all. The new scare story invokes an entire century of warming as if it was all manmade, yet ignores the official IPCC start data of AGW in 1950 and the Solar debunking start date of AGW in 1985 (Lockwood & F.).

    Of course the real story, fully revealed at last, is that the IPCC team are perfectly aware of all these limitations of the science and the contradictions of the real life evidence but put on a different face for those lumpen drones who don’t apparently have enough grey matter to notice that the new story contradicts the old one.

  31. Viktor says:

    I haven’t slept a wink all night.

    If the MSM won’t do their jobs, it’s up to us to spread these emails and data so pervasively that no one can claim ignorance.

    I eagerly await Mr. McIntyre’s analysis of the raw data.

  32. Icarus says:

    NastyWolf (01:00:19) : Clearly only 1990’s was the decade of rising temperatures.

    Clearly not -

    https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechange/yvtayto200

    You don’t need a computer to tell you the trend here. The data speaks for itself. Just in case you do though, here it is, using your chosen data series:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2008/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2008/trend

  33. Skeptic Tank says:

    Hmmm … mus’ be somp’n’ somebody doesn’t understand.

  34. Icarus says:

    Espen (01:36:01) : Icarus: Yes, look at the data, but don’t conveniently start your graph in 1949 as you do.

    Where would you like it to start? How about 1880? -

    https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechange/sngtaco21870

  35. Bruce Cobb says:

    Puzzled? Of course they’re puzzled. They still don’t get it.
    Their dear AGW ideology is circling the drain, and they don’t know why and are absolutely frantic about it.

  36. Icarus says:

    Chris P (02:13:18) :

    “Nothing in the last ten years looks like any change at all from the warming trend of around 0.2C per decade. Just look at the data”

    Good idea, just look at the data.
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

    Thanks for that. It just reinforces my point that there is nothing about temperatures in recent years to suggest any significant change in the long-term warming trend – just the familiar ‘noise’ (interannual variation) superimposed on the warming trend of around 0.2C per decade.

    You could argue that the dip in the ‘moving average’ at the end of the graph represents a change in the warming trend, but the point is that you can’t possibly know that until after the event – until about another 10 years have passed. If this were not the case then you could have declared global warming to be over in 2000 (you’d have been wrong), in 1990 (you’d have been wrong), in 1982 (you’d have been wrong) and so on. Conversely someone could have claimed that global warming was accelerating in 1998, 1980 and so on, and they’d have been wrong too. You simply can’t declare anything about long-term trends from one or two years of data. The ‘noise’ doesn’t allow you to do that. Moreover, when the data for the next several years is added to that graph, the dip you see *now* in the moving average may completely disappear anyway, if it’s being averaged with several warmer years.

  37. Layne Blanchard says:

    RR Kampen (00:44:21) :

    Your argument is supported by a litany of poor assumptions: Do you really think someone can walk outside, hold up a thermometer, and take earth’s yearly average temperature? With the sources of temperature records in a constant state of change, records more than a few decades old limited to land masses, drift of that measured collective in altitude and latitude, there are countless arguments remaining over how to calculate a single number to represent this, if not for current numbers (for we now have satellites) then for the baseline.

    Then there is this glaring reality: The Global Climate Models you guys so fervently look to in predicting doomsday didn’t see this downward shift in global temperatures coming. And they (along with everyone else) can’t tell us (exactly) why it is happening. This offers a stunning revelation, for if they could not see this oscillation coming when they were directly upon it, they have no chance of predicting what will happen in the next century. And more importantly, since they can’t quantitatively measure and explain the mechanisms causing the decline, they can’t discern if the same mechanism was not responsible for the 20 odd year warming spell that preceded it. Game over.

    Lets add one other revelation: Our climate is cyclical. Absolute fact. If you doubt this, merely look to the day, the seasons, the lunar cycle, the tides. On the other end of the spectrum, we have precession of the planet, oscillations in the ellipse of our orbit, both relative to the sun and jovian planets. We observe ~30 year oscillations in ocean currents, and warming patterns in the oceans, but we really can’t explain the mechanism which causes them.

    But those who would have us believe they are the masters of this universe, and can unequivocally state C02 caused it all, were DENSE enough to ignore all cyclical evidence, and instead predict a LINEAR trend in temperatures. Now they have egg on their faces, and so too, all the blind AGW faithful. The church is revealing its true nature, and it isn’t science. I’ll say it again, Game over.

  38. peeke says:

    Ron de Haan,

    Aren’t you the one that uses terms like “totalitarian world government”?

  39. Icarus says:

    Spector (02:13:40) :

    In my opinion, the real issue is “Do we have a Carbon-Dioxide Crisis?” The problem, as presented, is that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dangerously near a “tipping point” where it will cause a run-away greenhouse effect cooking the planet.

    Scientists argue that there are ‘tipping points’ – i.e. positive feedbacks that would kick in as the global temperature rises – but I’ve never heard a genuine climate scientist asserting that this will ‘cook the planet’ (presumably you mean something along the lines of what happened to Venus). Have you read anything that claims this could happen?

  40. hunter says:

    The answer, of course is from the Hadley e-mail archive dump:
    People are only surprised about the normalcy of the way climate is behaving because those who claim to be the arbiters of climate truth have been lying.

  41. RR Kampen says:

    Re: Ron de Haan (03:35:25) :

    “We have just been offered a peek into a “criminal conspiracy” cooking up our climate data in support of AGW. ”

    I do recognize a hoax when I see one. And what conspiracy is melting the glaciers?

    “Climate drivers:
    Our sun, our oceans and our volcano’s. That’s it.”

    There exist no greenhouse gases? Well, let’s forget physics then, and remember that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is exactly 1.1!

    “We are just a spec on the bud of an elephant.”

    This ‘speck’ can blow up the earth, end most life here and plunge the planet into nucleair winter. And this ‘speck’ can change the atmosphere’s chemistry dramatically, burning up stuff that took tens of millions of years to accumulate. The ‘speck’ you are can fly around the elephant in a day and a half.

    You are underestimating the most dominant and agressive living force the solar system has ever endured. Why? Get some pride!

  42. hunter says:

    Icarus,
    Please, just stop it.
    You are repeating proven lies.
    There are no great tipping points, there is no looming CO2 crisis.
    There is only a bunch of corrupt people pretending to be scientists fabricating stuff to make themselves feel important.
    AGW is to climate science what Bernie Madoff was to investments.

  43. Alexander Harvey says:

    From the full article:

    “… We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations,” says Latif. For this reason, he adds, it is dangerous to cite individual weather-related occurrences, such as a drought in Mali or a hurricane, as proof positive that climate change is already fully underway.

    “Perhaps we suggested too strongly in the past that the development will continue going up along a simple, straight line. In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal,” says Latif.

    ****

    Absolutely right, they should not have done it, and they should not have remained so quiet while others made leaps of the imagination that linked every temperature peak or extreme weather event to AGW.

    They have made dog’s dinner out of the data and I expect it must hurt. I also expect that they are trying to clear the decks and put some distance between themsleves and their past performance in the media.

    Obviously this leaves many people feeling confused and cheated. They ought to have been more cautious, they ought to have said that the 1970-2000 rise needed to be treated with caution as it might be partially or largely just natural variation. Perhaps it started from a low base and ended on a high note. Perhaps they should have said that the system can quite quickly jump by .1 or .2C up or down for no predicable reason and that they were not at all certain what the long term trend due to AGW was. What they are saying now just makes them look a little foolish. Perhaps they were saying this all the time and they were just not being quoted.

    What would be good at this point would be some firm predictions that put a floor under the future trend. Average Global figures for each future year that the record must equal or better to be consistent with AGW. Then, given that there are no more volcanoes, we can make some sort of judgment.

    I wonder what temps people would bet the careers on. I guess that some might think it prudent to say that global temperatures could decline in the next decade.

    All in all this was an accident waiting to happen.

    Alex

  44. RR Kampen says:

    Re: Layne Blanchard (05:16:05) :

    “.. didn’t see this downward shift in global temperatures coming.”

    Of course not. There is no downward shift.

    “Then there is this glaring reality: The Global Climate Models you guys so fervently look to in predicting doomsday…”

    You are adressing who? Not me. So I feel I should not react.

  45. Espen says:

    Icarus: Yes, 1880 is a better start since you then reveal the warm period in the first half of the 20th century, but it’s also very conveniently chosen, since 1880 probably was very close to an extreme minimum. Hadcrut goes back to 1850, which reveals another wave. It looks like this (but who knows how much the CRU boys have doctored it to dampen those earlier waves?):
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl

    But, suppose for the sake of argument that the difference between the 1930-1940 warm period and the current warm period is indeed 100% due to AGW, and suppose (also unlikely, but for the sake of argument) that CRU actually got it right: Then we’re looking at 0.4 degrees C warming over these years. And if we make the assumption that CO2 was at 310 ppm back then (this is also debatable), we get 0.4 degrees out of the increase from 310 ppm to 390 ppm. That corresponds to 1.2 degrees C of warming per doubling of CO2, not quite what the alarmist tell us!

    And, it should be obvious from the above that the real value is more likely to be lower 1.2 degrees than higher.

  46. Bruce Cobb says:

    Icarus (04:46:23) :

    Espen (01:36:01) : Icarus: Yes, look at the data, but don’t conveniently start your graph in 1949 as you do.

    Where would you like it to start? How about 1880? -

    https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechange/sngtaco21870

    Sure, Icky, start when we were just coming out of the LIA. How convenient. By the way, just what caused us to warm then? Horse manure? How about if we start from the MWP? Hmmmm? What does that do to your Warm-o-graph? Oh, right, you people don’t “recognize” the MWP. Sorry.

  47. fred houpt says:

    What continues to annoy me is not just that mainstream media all over the world totally ignore the facts about missing sun-spots and the possible direct correlation to cooling of our atmosphere and surface areas, they also ignore new research that links the inflow of cosmic rays from our galaxy as it (possibly) affects the production of cloud cover. As well, no words of the active volcanoes on Antartica, no words, none, about the affect of the Icelandic (constant) volcanism as it could (possibly) affect air and water currents in that part of the world. Nothing. Mass media filters the message to reflect the current politically correct notion that we humans are more responsible for our demise and trillions should be spent to do something about it. With so much profit to be made, you can be sure that big business will stoke the “we are doomed” fires for a long time to come. Speaking of which, mass media also says very little about the constant illegal burning of the Amazonian forests….etc.

  48. Bruce Cobb says:

    RR Kampen (05:31:12) :
    “Then there is this glaring reality: The Global Climate Models you guys so fervently look to in predicting doomsday…”

    You are adressing who? Not me. So I feel I should not react.

    And yet, you did. Telling.

    And what conspiracy is melting the glaciers?

    You are simply grasping at straw men as well as revealing your own ignorance about glaciers. When in a hole it is usually wise to stop digging.
    But then, you AGWers aren’t known for your smarts.

  49. Dan says:

    Wow , actual debate on this site!

  50. hunter says:

    RR Kampen,
    The first refuge of an AGW true believer, when confronted with data he does not like, is to pretend that it was never about an apocalypse.
    Their next move is to ignore it all, hoping those wraskly denialists will just go away.
    Perhaps you can be less predictable, but I doubt it.

  51. Steve M. says:

    Good idea, just look at the data.

    Thanks for that. It just reinforces my point that there is nothing about temperatures in recent years to suggest any significant change in the long-term warming trend – just the familiar ‘noise’ (interannual variation) superimposed on the warming trend of around 0.2C per decade.

    How do you figure that? I see a recovery from the little ice age. I see quite a bit of warming before humans “pumped” tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. The last interglacial peaked at a higher temperature:
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
    and even in the last 2000 years, ice core data shows higher temperatures:
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_2000_yrs.html

    Interglacial periods come and go regardless of the influence of humans. I’m not about to predict when the next glacial advance will happen…but it will happen.

  52. M White says:

    Its real confirmed on the BBC

    “Hackers target world’s leading climate research unit”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm

    “A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

    An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.”

  53. AnonyMoose says:

    But the climate change believers preach that temperatures should be stable.
    Why are they puzzled rather than cheering?

  54. Icarus (04:46:23) :

    [...]

    Where would you like it to start? How about 1880? -

    https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechange/sngtaco21870

    Why don’t we just start at 0 AD?

    Moberg & UAH

    A linear regression over the last 2,000 years shows no secular trend… Just a quasi-harmonic function.

  55. Matt says:

    “Perhaps we suggested too strongly in the past that the development will continue going up along a simple, straight line. In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal,” says Latif.”

    To that I offer another quote from “V for Vendetta”

    “I have not come for what you hoped to do. I’ve come for what you did.”

  56. Mods…

    Please fix my blockquote tag. I accidentally put a / in front of both tags.

  57. Ron de Haan says:

    Rudolf Kipp (00:40:45) :

    Nice site Rudolf.
    Some Skeptic Publications in the German Language won’t harm.
    Keep up the good work.
    Europe is at the brink of the introduction of Green Taxes based on this fraud!
    Time to wake up and shake the BoBo tree don’t you think so?

  58. Bruckner8 says:

    RR Kampen (00:44:21) :
    I guess it is forbidden to mention the dip in the solar cycle and the big Niña. I mean, those put 2007 and 2008 only just in the top ten warmest years instead of having them bust the record (without global warming they would have belonged to the 20% coldest, of course).

    One more time,Kampen,let’s take a hypothetical 11 year span, from say 1998 to 2008. Let’s also assume that 1998 was the “warmest year ever.” Furthermore,assume that each subsequent year from 1999 to 2008, the temp DECREASED, but ALL 10 of them were still in the top 11!

    We’d have the following CORRECT conclusions, based on observation ALONE:

    1) “The years 1998 to 2008 were the 11 warmest years ever.”

    2) “Every year after 1998 has BEEN COOLER.”

    The questions is: Why do warmists focus on 1), whilst skeptics on 2)?

    ANS: Because Al Gore and the warmists have also claimed that temps will continue to rise, and thus the title Global Warming!

    When in fact, they’ve continued to fall.

    Why is that so difficult to understand?

    (And I’m even allowing you to call all 11 years the “top 11!!!!”)

  59. Jeremy says:

    This along with the WSJ article are clear signposts that the media are beginning to wake up to the fact that that they have been duped by unethical scientists that have blown out of all proportion CO2 as a climate driver and the predictive accuracy of their climate models (in realty the models do not work at all).

    These unethical scientists and those who preach the AGW alarmist propaganda have (pick one)

    1) knowingly perpetrated fraud on a grand scale (to secure funding and notoriety).
    2) unwittingly allowed their beliefs and groupthink to blind them and their better judgment
    3) are just plain incompetent and actually have no idea what they are doing but have become totally dependent on making wild assumptions in order to appear competent or knowledgeable (it requires rigor, discipline, confidence and integrity to simply admit that “we don’t know” while it requires no effort to make spurious alarmist statements)

  60. Steve S. says:

    RR Kampen (00:49:21) :
    “Re: “Natural climate variations cause warming. ” – ah, so warming has no causes at all. Just happens.”

    Your spin here is ludicrous and dishonest.

    You obviously know full well that when someone refers to natural climate variations they are talking about natural causes.
    Various natural forces causing natural and historically routine climate variations.

    That leaves your smarmy remark “ah, so warming has no causes at all. Just happens” a deliberate and manipulative distortion.

    Your approach meshes well with conduct revealed in the e-mails between Team members. Their corrupting and suppressing of data while working to silence skeptisism and rig the peer review process, among other despicable behavior, disqualifies aything you bring which they produced.

    Anyone continuing to submit the work of the scoundrels as reliable is peddling an exposed swindle.

  61. Indiana Bones says:

    jh (01:32:40) :
    Someone appears to have broken a hockey stick!

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6606227/Antarctic-temperatures-between-ice-ages-6C-warmer-than-today.html

    This seems more to the point. A peer-reviewed study in Nature indicating that past warming could well be greater than previously thought. This puts more data on the natural variation side and matches other paleoclimate studies suggesting higher levels of CO2.

    Let’s also keep in mind that 90% of all ice on Earth is in the Antarctic. And according to NASA and the satellite record – it has been increasing in size about 4% since early 1970s.

    Now this is something to write an email about!

  62. Tom_R says:

    >> Icarus (04:46:23) : Where would you like it to start? How about 1880? – <<

    How about 1979, since there was never anything close to global coverage before the satellites.

  63. RR Kampen says:

    Steve S., of course there are natural variations. My remark alludes to the fact that these natural variations tend to be not pointed out. E.g. the hypothesis ‘it’s warming just because we’re coming out of the LIA’ is hollow. WHY are we coming out of the LIA? What causes this?

    There is also a system of belief with many skeptics that there can only be ‘natural variations’ and no anthropogenic cause at all.
    I would guest there is anthropogenic factor superposed on natural variations, and that the CO2-effect has clearly come to dominate the natural variations. How do we know this? We know this because there no significant change in natural variables, whereas there is a very significant change in atmospheric chemistry; physics finishes the story.

    Re: hunter (06:32:23) :
    “RR Kampen,
    The first refuge of an AGW true believer, when confronted with data he does not like, is to pretend that it was never about an apocalypse.”

    And what is this supposed to do with the subject? What kind of strange spin is this anyway?
    Actually, the word ‘alarmist’ is a skeptics’ invention. As is the idea that AGW-proponents necessarily predict apocalypse. A bit paranoid, methinks.

  64. dcardno says:

    As is the idea that AGW-proponents necessarily predict apocalypse.

    I take it you are unfamiliar with a gentleman named Albert Gore, or the publications of the IPCC, then?

  65. Michael Jennings says:

    rrKampen: 07:43:29 said;
    “And what is this supposed to do with the subject? What kind of strange spin is this anyway?
    Actually, the word ‘alarmist’ is a skeptics’ invention. As is the idea that AGW-proponents necessarily predict apocalypse. A bit paranoid, methinks.”

    Paranoid, you mean like accusing “non-believing” scientists as being funded and/or controlled by Energy companies perhaps?

  66. Tom Jones says:

    It is interesting to read the other articles on climate change in Der Spiegel. Their crusade to eliminate CO2 is unabated. It is going to take a lot of time for that crusade to be forgotten.

  67. t-bird says:

    In other news, there are reports of a gigantic flaming ball of gas in the sky which, it is rumored, heats the entire planet. Scientists are urging citizens to ignore it while they figure out the problem with the Earth’s temperatures…

  68. hunter says:

    RR Kampen,
    Please stop predictably misleading people. You may fool yourself, but no one else.
    Gore made a fortune selling the idea of climate catastrophe.
    Hansen has been saying for decades that we only have a few years left before an irreversible catastrophic tipping point is reached.
    Gordon Brown said, about 50 days ago, that we have 50 days to save the planet.
    A quick google of of the phrase ‘warming worse than we thought’ brings up millions of hits.
    Skeptics are not to be blamed for pointing out that you AGW true believers have been selling apocalypse from day one.
    And we are not alarmists when we not only point out that you are wrong, but that apoclyptic junk like AGW has a .000 success rate.
    And now, with the Hadley e-mail archive, I believe it is ssafe to say that when skeptics point out that AGW is a contrived pile of bs, we are correct.
    AGW: The greatest scientific achievement since eugenics.
    AGW: Does for climate science what Bernie Madoff did for investing.

  69. Third Party says:

    From: gjjenkins@meto.gov.uk
    To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, deparker@meadow.meto.govt.uk
    Subject: 1996 global temperatures
    Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)
    Cc: llivingston@meadow.meto.govt.uk, djcarson@meadow.meto.govt.uk, ckfolland@meadow.meto.govt.uk

    Phil

    Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
    with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December
    monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?

    I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,
    simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.

    I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:

    1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov

    2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
    heights up to 20 Dec.

    3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov

    4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20
    Dec

    5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the
    past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write
    an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville
    Nicholls??

    6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been
    created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also

    7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is)
    cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual
    avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this
    last year – can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)

    8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT
    EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.

    9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO
    press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.

    10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early
    Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.

    Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie
    simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to
    save time in the long run.

    Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

    Cheers

    Geoff

  70. RR Kampen says:

    Re: dcardno (08:01:47) :

    “As is the idea that AGW-proponents necessarily predict apocalypse.

    I take it you are unfamiliar with a gentleman named Albert Gore, or the publications of the IPCC, then?”

    I am familiar with both. You can take from me, in case you are not familiar with Gore/IPCC, that neither predict apocalypse or the end of the world. Both do warn for consequences of global warming and sane people call that sane.

    Re: Michael Jennings (08:02:22) :

    “Paranoid, you mean like accusing “non-believing” scientists as being funded and/or controlled by Energy companies perhaps?”

    Some of them are, of course. You can suss them out as well as I can.
    Also, it is the energy companies’ right to campaign like they do.
    Other ‘skeptics’ are just ignorant.
    Then there is a group of people who will move against consensus on any subject, from habit. Like me 1990-2004.

  71. RR Kampen says:

    hunter, I agree I abhor THAT kind of alarmism too.

    Did I ever mention on this forum that as to measures against global warming I side entirely with Lomborg?

    Could you please find for me the ten? Fifteen? How many? times I mentioned that here?

    I think the AGW-hypothesis is correct and it is my right to defend the thesis.

    But I am no ‘alarmist’, simply because I do believe apocalyptically about global warming.

    It is just a change, and it is a change that may get important consequences. Or would you even disagree on that?

  72. RR Kampen says:

    Please correct this *oops*: my last post should contain: “…simply because I do NOT believe apocalyptically about global warming.”

  73. bushy says:

    I am a little shocked by the scale of the revelations but not surprised. To any really objective observer and analyser the AGW concept is bogus – stop.

  74. John Galt says:

    Why is this a puzzle? It’s only puzzling to those who are stuck in their dogma.

    Those we remember the scientific method aren’t puzzled — they know this means the AGW hypothesis is wrong and it’s time to do more science.

  75. hunter says:

    RR Kampen,
    The deliberate ignorance that you display about your faith of choice is very entertaining. Please do not ever change.
    That you actually type a response that asserts that Gore, whose latest book is premised on the idea sepcifically that if we do not do what he demands the world will look like the cover of his book, and apparently expect to be considered credible, is rich entertainment.
    You true belivers are so sucked in to the bs that you do not notice the smell.
    Thanks for making a great day even better.
    Cheers,

  76. Ron de Haan says:

    RR Kampen (05:29:16) :

    Re: Ron de Haan (03:35:25) :

    “We have just been offered a peek into a “criminal conspiracy” cooking up our climate data in support of AGW. ”

    “I do recognize a hoax when I see one. And what conspiracy is melting the glaciers?”

    “Climate drivers:
    Our sun, our oceans and our volcano’s. That’s it.”

    There exist no greenhouse gases? Well, let’s forget physics then, and remember that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is exactly 1.1!

    “We are just a spec on the bud of an elephant.”

    This ’speck’ can blow up the earth, end most life here and plunge the planet into nucleair winter. And this ’speck’ can change the atmosphere’s chemistry dramatically, burning up stuff that took tens of millions of years to accumulate. The ’speck’ you are can fly around the elephant in a day and a half.

    You are underestimating the most dominant and agressive living force the solar system has ever endured. Why? Get some pride!”

    RR Kampen,

    So you believe human kind is responsible for melting the glaciers?
    And human kind is the most aggressive living force the solar system has ever endured? That’s interesting. You’re talking to someone who had it’s finger on the button during the Cold War!
    Glaciers were melting long before the Industrial Revolution so that’s a dead end street. And all our aggression and all our nuclear bombs, even if we ignited them all at once, won’t be able to match the power of nature by a long shot.

    The biggest enemy of men is men and history has learned that people start dying
    when a political elite takes control over the masses based on a false doctrine.
    I prefer to prevent such a situation because I love my life and my freedom.
    All that your confused idea’s will buy you is a bunch of green tax bills, high energy bills, high food bills and limitations on your personal freedom, blood in the streets and war. Not a single Euro will be used to improve to further improve the environment.
    Hope you get the message. Wake up.

  77. Bruce Cobb says:

    Kampen:
    Then there is a group of people who will move against consensus on any subject, from habit. Like me 1990-2004.
    So, you were against the “consensus” before you were for it?
    Hmmm….. sounds familiar somehow.

  78. pat says:

    These are the early feelers of some of the MSM pulling back to save their reputations. Expect more if the warming trend continues to plateau. There are some publications though, such as Time, Newsweak, and The economist that have invested their entire fortunes on the prospect of a global economic regime designed to cripple the USA.

  79. Icarus says:

    Spen (01:15:23) : ICARUS – I am simple sole whose understanding is that global warming is caused by increasing C02 concentration in the atmosphere. C02 levels have continued to rise over the last 10 years but temperatures have not. The conclusion must be that there are greater natural forces masking the greenhouse effect.

    Suppose you are cold at night and you put an extra blanket on the bed. You don’t instantly warm up – it takes a little while of reduced heat loss for you to reach an equilibrium at a higher temperature.

    A similar phenomenon applies to the Earth, but of course on a much longer timescale. Greenhouse gases reduce the outgoing radiation to space, so that the planet warms up until the increase in longwave radiation (heat, i.e. infrared) is enough to balance the enhanced greenhouse effect, and the planet is once more in equilibrium. Therefore the rise in global average temperature is not proportional to how *fast* greenhouse gases have risen but to the *concentration*. The main consequence of this fact is that global temperature will continue to rise for many years *even if* we never emit another ounce of CO2 (this is what climate scientists mean when they talk about warming “in the pipeline”).

    So, you should expect global average temperature to be rising just because CO2 is 100ppm higher than it was 200 years ago, *not* because CO2 is still rising… and that is what we do see. The warming trend is still at around 0.2C per decade, notwithstanding the normal interannual variability – the ‘noise’ superimposed on that long-term warming trend.

  80. Spector says:

    RE: Icarus (05:20:59) :

    For the purposes of my comment, “cook the planet” is poetic shorthand for a crisis so severe as to require a worldwide “all hands on deck” response to throw our expensive carbon-dioxide cargo overboard at great personal loss in order to prevent a roll-over.

    The global warming debate appears equivalent to arguing whether our ‘ship’ is in the process of rolling over or just responding to the sea. Dr. Lindzen’s data seems to indicate the latter situation.

  81. Why is there increased debate on this website?

    Because the AGW crowd knows their goals are slipping away and so on an individual basis, this is where they can take action adding their shoulder to the wheel.

    Please do, and have your arguments demolished!

  82. WAG says:

    Here is the portion of the article that matters:

    “‘We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations,’ says Latif…

    “‘Perhaps we suggested too strongly in the past that the development will continue going up along a simple, straight line. In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal,” says Latif.

    “They predict that the average global temperature will increase by about three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, unless humanity manages to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, no one really knows what exactly the world climate will look like in the not-so-distant future, that is, in 2015, 2030 or 2050…

    “If the deep waters of the Pacific are, in fact, the most important factor holding up global warming, climate change will remain at a standstill until the middle of the next decade, says Latif. But if the cooling trend is the result of reduced solar activity, things could start getting warmer again much sooner. Based on past experience, solar activity will likely increase again in the next few years.”

    Also, note that this sentence is inaccurate: “the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The IPCC did not “predict” that the temperature would warm 0.2 degrees from 1999-2008 – the 0.2 degrees is a trend. If it warms 0.07 degrees over this decade, and 0.33 degrees over the next decade, the IPCC prediction is correct.

  83. Icarus says:

    Tom_R (07:37:53) :
    “Icarus (04:46:23) : Where would you like it to start? How about 1880? –”

    How about 1979, since there was never anything close to global coverage before the satellites.

    OK then. Satellite data as cited by ‘NastyWolf’:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2008/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2008/trend

  84. philincalifornia says:

    “Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. “There can be no argument about that,” he says. “We have to face that fact.”

    What could he mean by “face that fact” ??

    Brace yourselves, all of humanity. We all have to face the fact that temperatures are not changing currently. This is an uncontrollable and unpredictably harsh climatic situation that we will have to pull through together. Seat belts securely fastened.

    Or:

    OK my friends. Time to update your CVs.

  85. Patti says:

    From American Thinker Blog:
    Scientific scandal appears to rock climate change promoters

    At first many of us were inclined to dismiss the posted emails from the Institute as fraud, but the head of the institute admits the records were hacked and the emails seem genuine.

    Here is a sample of the purportedly hacked material (1079 emails and 72 documents) available online:
    From: Phil Jones
    To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
    Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
    Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers
    Phil

    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/scientific_scandal_appears_to.html

  86. Steve says:

    We have frequent “Global Warming Updates” (pun intended) on COMMON CENTS regularly. Check it out…. most are too funny…..

    http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

    [Approved this time. Future plugs are Anthony's call. ~dbs, mod.]

  87. Bruce Cobb says:

    Spen (01:15:23) : ICARUS – I am simple sole whose understanding is that global warming is caused by increasing C02 concentration in the atmosphere. C02 levels have continued to rise over the last 10 years but temperatures have not. The conclusion must be that there are greater natural forces masking the greenhouse effect.

    Spen, it is best not to ask Icky anything, and certainly not to believe anything he says, as all he continually does, in robot fashion is to continually spout the same, pseudo-scientific AGW gibberish. He is here for entertainment purposes only.

  88. Icarus says:

    Espen (05:53:15) :
    …if we make the assumption that CO2 was at 310 ppm back then (this is also debatable), we get 0.4 degrees out of the increase from 310 ppm to 390 ppm. That corresponds to 1.2 degrees C of warming per doubling of CO2, not quite what the alarmist tell us!

    I don’t think your argument quite works here. Suppose you could change from 300ppm to 400ppm CO2 in one day. You observe that the world warms up 0.00001C by midnight, and conclude that climate sensitivity is actually 0.00003C per doubling of CO2. Is that a valid conclusion? I think not, for the reason I mentioned earlier – there is a lag of many years before the system once again reaches equilibrium, and the actual temperature rise depends on the *concentration* of greenhouse gases, not the rate of change. Not only do you need to consider this warming ‘in the pipeline’ just from the physics of greenhouse gases, you also need to consider long-term feedbacks from ice sheets, vegetation cover, thawing permafrost and so on, all of which make climate sensitivity a lot more complicated than your simple calculation above suggests. Palaeoclimate studies can help with that but I don’t think anyone would claim to know the value with certainty.

  89. Bart says:

    Alexander Harvey (05:30:17) :

    “All in all this was an accident waiting to happen.”

    That is what I feared most ever since this bandwagon got underway. Last night, while looking for information, I linked to a site that had a lot of additional links and commentary which got progressively wackier, until by the end, the guy was railing about special relativity, one of the most heavily confirmed and usefully predictive theories of all time.

    In a time when a large segment of the population believes that heavy doses of vitamins will prevent cancer (such dosing appears to correlate with higher risk), that universal healthcare, economic well-being, and elimination of scarcity can be decreed by law, and that nuclear power plants can explode like nuclear bombs, we do not need the forces of pseudo-science to be given the enormous boost that the defeat of this juggernaut would provide.

    The AGW camp bet the ranch of scientific credibility, which did not belong solely to them, on this one roll of the dice. It was irresponsible.

  90. Doug says:

    Isn’t odd that the warm period in the 40′s has roughly the same slope as the warming period in the 90′s? No CO2 in the 40′s = the same slope as the 90′s with CO2. Obviously no correlation.

    Isn’t also odd that some of the same people warning about global cooling in the 70′s are now warning about global warming? Doesn’t that hint that there is more in politics and money than there is in science?

  91. rbateman says:

    RR Kampen (00:49:21) :

    Not only does warming have no causes, apparently so too does cooling, which has been going on the last 10 years.
    For 20 years here, from the late 70′s to the late 90′s, it did not snow in November. Since 2001, it has been snowing in November. Yep, it’s snowing here today.
    Global Warming is so last last century.

  92. Ron de Haan says:

    peeke (05:16:17) :

    Ron de Haan,

    Aren’t you the one that uses terms like “totalitarian world government”?

    No Peeke, our politicians do and the Copenhagen Climate Treaty concept does.
    It’s the reason why they started the AGW Hoax.

  93. chrisschoneveld says:

    Icarus (10:17:51) :
    “Not only do you need to consider this warming ‘in the pipeline’ just from the physics of greenhouse gases, you also need to consider long-term feedbacks from ice sheets, vegetation cover, thawing permafrost and so on, all of which make climate sensitivity a lot more complicated than your simple calculation above suggests”

    And even more complicated if you also consider all the negative feedbacks which you so conveniently leave out.

  94. Bart says:

    Icarus (10:17:51) :

    “…all of which make climate sensitivity a lot more complicated than your simple calculation above suggests…”

    Then, I wish guys like here would stop saying things like “At the heart of this is basic physics.” He’s borrowing from my account to put off the regulators.

  95. Jim Clarke says:

    RR Kampen,

    You wrote: “We know this because there no significant change in natural variables, whereas there is a very significant change in atmospheric chemistry; physics finishes the story.”

    You adopt the ‘radiation argument’ when you say that there has been no significant change in the natural variables. This assumes that the only natural changes in global atmospheric temperature can result from a change in the amount of radiation coming from the sun, or something like a volcano that blocks the radiation from the sun. This assumption is obviously wrong. The ENSO cycle alone can produce significant changes in atmospheric temperature without any changes in solar radiation or volcanic activity. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that there are other ocean cycles like the AMO and PDO that have, unlike CO2, a very real correlation with global temperatures for all time scales, not just the last 30 years of the 20th century.

    Based on the warming of th early 20th century, the natural ocean cycles probably account for at least 50% (conservatively) of the late 20th century warming. They do not, however, account for the overall increase from one cycle to the next. The sunspots do that.

    The AGW supporters love to point out that the sunspots peaked before the warming of the late 20th century. Then I point out the warmest temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere always occur weeks after the peak solar input at the summer solstice. And the coldest temperatures occur weeks after the minimum input at the winter solstice. There is a delay because the thermal result is cumulative, not instantaneous.

    The same type of delay occurs with sunspot activity, which probably has a small impact on the percentage of global cloud cover, changing the amount of sunlight absorbed by the oceans. Unlike CO2, the additional energy is cumulative and absorbed over a long period of time, manifesting as a temperature change in the atmosphere slowly over decades. Increasing CO2 has an instantaneous effect on air temperatures, which we are obviously not seeing now (or in the 50′s and 60′s), because it is too small compared to these natural factors! If CO2 was dominant, there would be no possible way to go through 10 years of increasing CO2 without increasing temperatures. It is obviously not dominant. This is ‘real’ physics finishing the story.

    Of course, CO2 must have some impact on global temperatures. Lab results indicate a doubling of CO2 would result in about a degree of warming on a perfectly clear-sky earth, all else being equal. Factor in the global cloud cover and that drops to around 0.6 degrees, of which, half should have already occurred do to the logarithmic nature of CO2 warming. So far, there is no evidence of any positive feedbacks that would multiply this number, but Roy Spencer is showing some real evidence of negative feedbacks, which would reduce the CO2 impact even further.

    Overall, the Earth is behaving precisely as if there was a very small warming from increasing CO2 and that most of the observed climate change is totally natural. This view of climate change has been held by many people for a long time. This view also explains all of the observed warm and cold periods of the last several thousand years, not just the last 30 years of the 20th century. This view predicted, back in the early 1990s, that global cooling would begin in the first decade of the 21st century and continue for about 3 decades. So far, the prediction appears to be spot on, while the AGW prediction is way off!

    In science, we adopt the theory that does the best at explaining all the observations and predicting the future. AGW is obviously not the best theory.

  96. George E. Smith says:

    Well I see that Icarus’ hockey stick data is a NOAA composite of land and ocean data. Well too bad; I hate to see that coean data in there.

    Seems to me it was about 1980 when the first oceanic surface buoys were deployed to simultaneously measure water (-1 metre) and air (+3 metres) temperatures.

    Christy et al reported in Jan 2001, Geophysical Research letters that the atmospheric warming was only about 60% (from memory) of the water warming, FOR THAT 20 OR SO YEAR PERIOD.
    The really big opps was that the water and air temperatures are not correlated, which means that prior to about 1980 all the oceanic data obtained from water sampling is bogus (well it is good water temperatures); and the appropriate lower troposphere (air) temperatures are unrecoverable, since the two aren’t correlated.

    That is MY conclusion; John Christy did not specifically say that; I infer that from the lack of correlation; so throw rocks at me not Dr Christy.

    So nyet and nuts to NOAA’s composite data report.
    Sorry Icarus; fortunately for you, your wing wax job isn’t going to melt any time soon.

  97. rbateman says:

    Yes, it’s really complicated. It’s so complicated that the Arctic Sea Ice is recovering nicely and it’s getting quite cold out there.
    It’s so complicated the way that expanding ice sheets are reflecting sunlight from a dinged Sun back into space, and GCR induced low clouds are bouncing back weakened sunlight.
    It’s so complicated that all I have to do is open my front door and feel the icy cold out there.
    It’s so complicated the birds flew south a month and a half early.
    Man, that’s some rough stuff.

  98. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Icarus (09:16:46) :

    Spen (01:15:23) : ICARUS – I am simple sole whose understanding is that global warming is caused by increasing C02 concentration in the atmosphere. C02 levels have continued to rise over the last 10 years but temperatures have not. The conclusion must be that there are greater natural forces masking the greenhouse effect.

    Suppose you are cold at night and you put an extra blanket on the bed. You don’t instantly warm up – it takes a little while of reduced heat loss for you to reach an equilibrium at a higher temperature. “””

    Well that argument won’t fly either Icarus.

    For a start the earth’s climate is not, and never has been in an equilibrium state; how could it possibly be, when the earth rotates on a 24 hour basis, so the sunlight comes and goes on any portion of the earth, so the whole system is continually moving.

    But then you have this additional problem.

    According to the Mauna Loa CO2 data, which I think most people do believe in some fashion, the CO2 is steadily rising on a ramp, although some believe that ramp is also steepening.

    As any first year analog circuit design student can tell you, if you feed an input Voltage ramp into an RC delay circuit (simulating your warming delay), The final output Voltage is also a ramp with exactly the same rising slope as the input, except for a startup ramp which takes from 3-5 time constants to finally reach the correct stady state output slope.

    So if the CO2 is the input driving signal, and is a rising ramp, the output should also be a ramp.

    Oops! I’m sorry, I forgot that the temperature is only the logarithm of the CO2; scrub all that above.

    Well maybe not; hang on a minute. I believe that Ln(1+x) = x for small values of x, and since ML CO2 increases maybe 1.5 ppm per year, out of 388 ppm maybe the value of x is about 1/2% or 0.005
    So Ln(1.005) is about 0.005 (error is about 12.5 x 10^-6)

    So I think that means that temperature is actually linear with CO2 after all; so resuscitate all that above I told you to scrub. A rising CO2 ramp should yield a rising temperature ramp after a short getting up to speed delay.

    Now this rising CO2 ramp has been going on for at least all of the 20th century, and the so far years of the 21st, so when does your output ramp kick off, and if we did have an output ramp in the 1970; whay on earth would it stop if the input ramp is still playing at full loudness ?

    No Icarus; I don’t think you have me convinced yet.

  99. Bart (10:20:51) wrote: “…we do not need the forces of pseudo-science to be given the enormous boost that the defeat of this juggernaut would provide.”

    Doesn’t Bart have this completely backwards?

    In reality, the pseudo-science of AGW has done more to promote other pseudo-science than anything else on the planet.

    How?

    By setting the example that if you lie hard enough, big enough, and often enough, you can be successful with the “BIG LIE” and support your agenda or protect a failed scientific line of inquiry.

    Don’t kid yourself, the money, funding, and comfortable careers are trumping real science at an alarming rate.

  100. NikFromNYC says:

    Chris P wrote: “Good idea, just look at the data. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

    Yes, let’s indeed HAVE a look at the data. A real look without the funky outlandish zero line with spiky things colored red. In fact, let’s have a very good look at the data by extending it back say…two hundred years:

    http://i49.tinypic.com/24oaezd.jpg

    Now let’s analyze the data, given that we now trust our two hundred hear extension back in time:

    http://i35.tinypic.com/2db1d89.jpg

  101. NikFromNYC says:

    Whoah, I screwed up the scale by miscounting the axis while using Photoshop to overlay Microsoft Excel graphs. The new version makes more sense since you expect less noise in the global than for a single station!

    http://i48.tinypic.com/28c2e4w.jpg

  102. JackStraw says:

    Icarus-

    I don’t know you so I don’t know if you are being deliberately obtuse or it just comes naturally. I don’t know a single sentient being who doesn’t get the concept that the climate is in constant flux and has been since the beginning of recorded time. That’s not the debate.

    The debate is what, if any, impact humans have had on the climate. It is the duty of those who insist that humans are causing significant and potentially catastrophic damage to prove it using transparent facts. To date, they have failed miserably in this endeavour.

    The leak of the CRU data is another nail in the coffin confirming what many of us have believed all along, warmists have been cooking the data to prove their pet theory not letting the data drive them to a conclusion. That’s many things, science isn’t one of them.

    Btw, about your nom de blog, Icarus lost his wings by flying too close to the sun not from man made climate change. You know, that big yellow ball in ths sky which has always had the dominant affect on our climate. Perhaps you should come up with a new name, or are you the ironic type?

  103. Innocentious says:


    Ron de Haan (03:35:25) :
    RR Kampen (00:49:21) :

    “”Re: “Natural climate variations cause warming. ” – ah, so warming has no causes at all. Just happens””.

    RR kampen,
    We have just been offered a peek into a “criminal conspiracy” cooking up our climate data in support of AGW. And here you are, bud naked by a total lack of scientific arguments preaching your warmists believes. Isn’t it frustrating to see your entire thermogeddon doctrine collapsing?

    Climate drivers:
    Our sun, our oceans and our volcano’s. That’s it.
    We are just a spec on the bud of an elephant.

    Perhaps by volcano’s you also meant heat coming from our own earths core that more then likely has as much influnce as anything in warming, though I am unsure of anything talking about this other then theory… We do of course have a glowing hot center to this thing we call Earth…

    Which reminds me we have more to fear from Yellowstone finally shooting out as a super volcano then we do CO2 emissions, CO2 MAY warm the earth, a Yellowstone event will cause horrible horrible results and WILL occur someday.

  104. King of Cool says:

    rbateman (11:13:44) :
    Yes, it’s really complicated. It’s so complicated that the Arctic Sea Ice is recovering nicely and it’s getting quite cold out there.

    Yeah, it is complicated. This report from our ABC, who will publish or broadcast anything that promotes global warming, tells us that the Arctic may be ice free in just 20 years time. But the irony, it says, is that it will uncover more resources under the Arctic ice shelf which caused global warming in the first place:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/20/2749007.htm

    Now that would be a real dilemma for future generations to resolve!

  105. Erik Ramberg says:

    I don’t understand this idea of stalling global temperatures. I just fit each 5-year period of NCDC global mean anomalies since 1997 and every 5 point fit had a positive slope. How is that stalled global warming?

    Here’s the data:
    1997 0.5584
    1998 0.8321
    1999 0.6760
    2000 0.5175
    2001 0.7204
    2002 0.8309
    2003 0.7711
    2004 0.7075
    2005 0.9553
    2006 0.8159
    2007 0.9804
    2008 0.7758

  106. Paul Vaughan says:

    Steve Schapel (01:30:16) “Paul, If the models predict warming, and there is no warming, then the models are wrong. Therefore, it seems to me that “whether or not there is warming” is important.”

    It’s a time-consuming red-herring.

    -
    RR Kampen (00:49:21) “warming has no causes at all. Just happens.”

    No such claim has been made.

  107. NikFromNYC (12:09:43) :

    Whoah, I screwed up the scale by miscounting the axis while using Photoshop to overlay Microsoft Excel graphs. The new version makes more sense since you expect less noise in the global than for a single station!

    http://i48.tinypic.com/28c2e4w.jpg

    Nik…

    Here’s a fun exercise: Go to NOAA’s Paleoclimatology page and click on “Climate Reconstructions.” Select “Northern Hemisphere Temperature (Wavelet: Sediments, Tree-rings), 2000 Years, Moberg et al. 2005.”

    Download Moberg’s 2000-year NH reconstruction and apply a linear regression to it. The linear trend line will be flat as a pancake. I normalized the UAH series to Moberg and added it in to get a full 2008-year record and plotted it with 1000 years of CO2 data…

    Moberg & CO2

    I get no secular temperature trend and no long-term correlation between temp’s and CO2.

  108. Gail Combs says:

    “I believe that questioning the reality of global warming, man-caused or otherwise, is a distraction — the real question is “do we have a dangerous carbon-dioxide crisis?”

    Yes we have a “carbon-dioxide crisis” we are in a CO2 starved geological time period that is stunting plant growth. If theCO2 sequestering idiots actually do reduce the CO2 globally we could end up killing off the plant life and thus ALL life on this planet. Even just reducing CO2 levels and banning the use of CO2 in green houses could promote starvation…..

  109. NikFromNYC says:

    Chris P is my new muse. His input allowed me to double the punch value of my Central England Don’t Panic! graphic:

    http://i45.tinypic.com/iwq8a1.jpg

    Copyright Nik Willmore 2009 (can be used freely as long as unmodified).

  110. Bart says:

    James F. Evans (11:35:55) :

    “Doesn’t Bart have this completely backwards?”

    I may have stated it clumsily, but you and I are in absolute agreement. By making “science” suspect, they will have unleashed the forces of unreason.

  111. An Inquirer says:

    Icarus (00:13:10) :
    I have not read all the comments, so undoubtedly my reply to your opening salvo will be somewhat pre-empted by other posters. Nevertheless, here are a few points. A strong characteristic of people who visit this blog is a desire to look at data, to know where the origin of that data, and to analyze pros and cons of that data. There are at least three reasons why your graph shows you the trend you see. First, the data series is not corrected for UHI and local siting issues that have added a warming trend. (And the ocean data is too complicated to discuss here.) Second, you start the series in the mid 20th century — so you start in the depth of a cycle and go to the the peak. And third, no one here is surprised by a warming trend in modern-temperature readings. You can go back to the late 1800s when thermometer readings have some credibility for a GMT, and you will see an upward trend. That is absolutely no surprise. You could go back to the mid 18th century, and most would expect to see an upward trend since then — we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age, and to the extent that a GMT has meaning, we would expect it to rise over the last 200+ years. Also, most skeptics do expect to see CO2 have some influence on temperature, but the question is whether it has an overwhelming influence. Looking at the data, I conclude that CO2 does not have such an overwhelming influence. It is poorly correlated with temperatures, and only by using opportunistic values of aerosols can one get a good model fit with CO2 being a driver of temperatures.

  112. Espen says:

    Icarus (10:17:51) :
    I don’t think your argument quite works here. Suppose you could change from 300ppm to 400ppm CO2 in one day. You observe that the world warms up 0.00001C by midnight, and conclude that climate sensitivity is actually 0.00003C per doubling of CO2.

    This is a ridiculous example, my example included a timespan of 69 years, not one night. And otherwise, alarmists tend to aruge that anything above 30 years is climate… And btw. you didn’t get the math right, if you could estimate climate sensitivity from one night as in your contrived example, it would be 0.000024 per doubling, not 0.00003.


    the actual temperature rise depends on the *concentration* of greenhouse gases, not the rate of change.

    You’re talking nonsense here. The point is that the temperature is logarithmically proportional to the concentration. But I think you already showed us that you don’t get the math above.


    Not only do you need to consider this warming ‘in the pipeline’ just from the physics of greenhouse gases, you also need to consider long-term

    Where is the “warming in the pipeline”? If anywhere, it would be in the oceans, but ocean heat content has been flat or slightly falling for 6 years.


    feedbacks from ice sheets, vegetation cover, thawing permafrost and so on, all of which make climate sensitivity a lot more complicated than your simple calculation above suggests.

    These are better arguments. The problem is that nobody really knows, but what we do know, is e.g. that there was no runaway warming in the Eemian, when temperatures were significantly higher than today.

  113. Icarus says:

    NikFromNYC :
    http://i45.tinypic.com/iwq8a1.jpg

    Nik, I hadn’t seen that data set before, so thanks for the pointer. I did my own rather crude chart of it -

    https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechange/central-england

    I thought there might be some obvious correlation with variations in solar intensity but that’s probably a bit much to ask from a data set which only covers one very small part of the world.

    You say: “The oldest thermometer record in existence demonstrates that recent warming is completely normal”. There are at least a couple of problems with this claim -

    1: You’re using a data set from one very small part of the land surface and implying that this demonstrates the recent *global* warming is normal. I don’t think that follows.

    2: I think you’re implying that because early 18th Century warming was presumably caused by non-anthropogenic forcings, the same must apply to the current warming. I don’t think this follows either. We can’t just assume that because the former was natural, the latter must be too. That’s like the classic “dinosaurs didn’t have SUVs so how come the planet was warmer then?” kind of argument. It doesn’t look like you can blame the current warming on the sun, for example.

    3: The current warming does appear to be unprecedented in at least the last 300 years covered by this data. That’s perhaps a bit clearer in the moving average (my chart) than in the raw data. So, not entirely ‘normal’ by that measure either.

  114. Paul Vaughan says:

    Gail Combs (13:11:21) “CO2 sequestering idiots”

    You are wise to call a spade a spade. Here in Canada, the province of Saskatchewan is muddying the waters with their nonsense on this front. 100% sleazy – no benefit to the environment – no benefit to consumers – no benefit to taxpayers. All they’re doing is creating real problems to solve fake ones. Their premier is losing his touch. He now comes across as a fast-talking snake-oil salesman.

  115. dcardno says:

    I am familiar with both. You can take from me, in case you are not familiar with Gore/IPCC, that neither predict apocalypse…

    Then you have a different understanding of “apocalyptic claim” than I do – Gore’s claim of a 20′ sea leavel rise is apocalyptic in my book, as is the prediction of increasing frequency and severity of hurricanes and the (laughably false) attribution both of hurricane Katrina and the resultant flooding of New Orleans to AGW. This goes beyond merely ‘warning of the consequences.’

  116. Icarus (14:37:01) :

    [...]

    3: The current warming does appear to be unprecedented in at least the last 300 years covered by this data. That’s perhaps a bit clearer in the moving average (my chart) than in the raw data. So, not entirely ‘normal’ by that measure either.

    Most of the last 300 years was during something called the “Little Ice Age.” The “Modern Warming” from 1850-2009 is almost identical to the first peak of the Medieval Warm Period…

    Medieval vs. Modern Warming

    The “anomalous” period is the Little Ice Age; which was far colder than the prior cold period during the Dark Ages.

    The magnitude and rate of warming in the early 20th century was almost indentical to the late 20th century…

    HadCRUT3 1912-1945 and 1975-2009

    The only “anomalous” thing was that the cooling from 1945-1975 was less intense than the surrounding warming periods – And it still lead Time, Newseek and Science News to all run “impending ice age” cover stories in the mid- to late-1970′s.

  117. Icarus (14:37:01) :

    [...]

    3: The current warming does appear to be unprecedented in at least the last 300 years covered by this data. That’s perhaps a bit clearer in the moving average (my chart) than in the raw data. So, not entirely ‘normal’ by that measure either.

    Most of the last 300 years was during something called the “Little Ice Age.” The “Modern Warming” from 1850-2009 is almost identical to the first peak of the Medieval Warm Period…

    Medieval vs. Modern Warming

    The “anomalous” period is the Little Ice Age; which was far colder than the prior cold period during the Dark Ages.

    The magnitude and rate of warming in the early 20th century was almost indentical to the late 20th century…

    HadCRUT3 1912-1945 and 1975-2009

    The only “anomalous” thing was that the cooling from 1945-1975 was less intense than the surrounding warming periods – And it still lead Time, Newseek and Science News to all run “impending ice age” cover stories in the mid- to late-1970′s.

  118. Ken S says:

    Is Icarus actually “Flanagan” in Drag?

    Sure sounds like Flanagan’s old “warmer lies and disinformation”!

  119. I do love the smell of AGW desperation in the morning.

    (Cue Ride of the Valkyries….)

  120. KlausB says:

    As a German, I have to explain, ‘Der Spiegel’ was famous for its investigative journalism. Nowadays, thats not real anymore.

    I did have an abonnement from ’75 until ‘ 93, cancelled it, when I recognized ‘Der Spiegel’ did go mainstream.

    More, this article – as much others before – you won’t see it in German language, not online, not in printing. Amazing.

    Quite some posters here are complaining about Ignorance&Silence in MSM about the hystery of AGW. In Germany it’s worse, much worse.

    Don’t expect, that ‘Der Spiegel’ will write any real inconstructive about
    AGW, until every other and his dog did it already.

    In the last ten years, ‘Der Spiegel’ was the mouth-pipe of people a.l.a.
    Stefan Rahmsdorf (PIK, Germany) and others.

    Best Regards

    KlausB

    p.s. Anthony, do give the operators some extra pay, they always do deserve it,
    today absolute sincerely.

    [Our only pay is times like this, when the shenanigans get exposed. ~dbs, mod.]

  121. Martin Mason says:

    Kampen, I’m surprised to see people of your pursuasion still around given what is happenning in the climate change industry at the moment. Perhaps you could answer a couple of questions to help me understand what you are getting at. How have we recovered from the last ice age and all previous ice ages without anthropogenic CO2? How can we have cooling periods if AGW is the dominant climate driver?

    Have you read the Hadcrut e-mails? Dynamite aren’t they.

  122. Paul Vaughan says:

    Martin Mason (17:31:29) “Kampen, I’m surprised to see people of your pursuasion still around”

    Maybe he has windmills &/or carbon sequestration to sell you.

  123. Democracy Now says:

    The socalled financial crisis has caused a slowdown all over the world. It is possible that this slowdown (15 – 20 % average) has caused what we now
    can observe.

    The whole world have to get the emissions down.

    Best regards from Norway

  124. Falstaff says:

    Icarus -

    Your comments on the Der Spiegel article regarding recent temperature trends are incoherent.

    Allow me to remind you of the article lead:
    “”Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 YEARS [...]
    Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE MILLENNIUM,…””
    [caps are mine for emphasis]

    The article states and restates the topic is on RECENT temperature trends. To which you respond:

    “” Icarus (00:13:10) :
    Clearly none of this is true -””

    and then attempt to substantiate your response by plotting long term temperature for the last SIXTY years, an incoherent non-sequitor.

    You then state repeatedly that nothing has changed in the long term trend of 0.2C per decade, only to refute yourself by posting your own linear regression here:

    “”Icarus (04:38:28) :
    [...]
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2008/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2008/trend“”
    which shows a linear trend of 0.16 deg C per decade over the 28 years including the ’98 El Nino. Why the decrease? Because the absence of warming in since 2000 has begun to pull at the long term trend, the POINT of the Der Speigel story.

    If you wanted to contribute usefully graphic information relevant to discussion of THIS article, then the following was all that was necessary, or relevant:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2008/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2009/trend

  125. Icarus says:

    Espen (14:25:57) :
    Icarus (10:17:51) :
    “I don’t think your argument quite works here. Suppose you could change from 300ppm to 400ppm CO2 in one day. You observe that the world warms up 0.00001C by midnight, and conclude that climate sensitivity is actually 0.00003C per doubling of CO2.”

    This is a ridiculous example, my example included a timespan of 69 years, not one night.

    That’s my point though – calculating it the way you did, the two examples give wildly different results for climate sensivity, whereas *in reality*, the final temperature you actually *observed* (at equilibrium) would be the same in both cases, regardless of whether you reached your 400ppm in one day or 70 years. That’s why your calculation was wrong. Climate sensitivity depends on actual concentrations of greenhouse gases, not their rate of change.

    The point is that the temperature is logarithmically proportional to the concentration.

    … not the rate of change; exactly.

    “Not only do you need to consider this warming ‘in the pipeline’ just from the physics of greenhouse gases, you also need to consider long-term…”

    Where is the “warming in the pipeline”? If anywhere, it would be in the oceans, but ocean heat content has been flat or slightly falling for 6 years.

    When scientists talk about ‘warming in the pipeline’ they don’t mean warming that has already occurred – they mean warming which hasn’t occurred yet but which will do in the future because of the radiative imbalance. This is what a ‘forcing’ is all about. If the Earth is radiating away less energy than it is absorbing from the sun then it will *necessarily* warm up (it can’t possibly do otherwise) but it will do so gradually, not instantly, until the balance is restored. Most of that heat will go into the oceans.

    “…feedbacks from ice sheets, vegetation cover, thawing permafrost and so on, all of which make climate sensitivity a lot more complicated than your simple calculation above suggests.”

    These are better arguments. The problem is that nobody really knows, but what we do know, is e.g. that there was no runaway warming in the Eemian, when temperatures were significantly higher than today.

    There was a very large jump in global temperature around 130,000 years ago which does suggest ‘runaway warming’ as you call it but CO2 never got above 280ppm even at the peak, so I’m not sure what that can tell us about today when we have CO2 at 380ppm or so.

    http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/2/3/0394/97545
    http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11659/dn11659-2_738.jpg

  126. Icarus says:

    Falstaff (18:22:09) :
    The article states and restates the topic is on RECENT temperature trends. To which you respond:

    “” Icarus (00:13:10) :
    Clearly none of this is true -””

    and then attempt to substantiate your response by plotting long term temperature for the last SIXTY years, an incoherent non-sequitor.

    How could you possibly talk about a ‘stall’, ‘standstill’ or ‘stagnation’ in a long term trend *except* in the context of that long term trend? If you don’t look at decades’ worth of data then you can’t see the long term trend at all, so you can’t possibly have anything interesting or informative to say about it.

    …the absence of warming in since 2000 has begun to pull at the long term trend, the POINT of the Der Speigel story.

    And I pointed out that you can’t *possibly* know this now. You can only know whether this is true or not several years (maybe as many as 10 years) down the line, because a succession of warmer years would show that there was no such ‘pulling at the long term trend’ at all. What you see *now* as a ‘stall’ will simply disappear if the next few years are warmer still. Do you agree? That’s why the story is really just nonsense.

  127. Curiousgeorge says:

    Mods: This is all very interesting, but what people really want to know – assuming this revelation about Hadley is significant enough to dismember or seriously damage the entire AGW hypothesis – is:

    How will this debunking/scandal effect my 401K, my house value, what kind of car I drive, the value of the dollar, international trade, my job, the cost of groceries, gas, and electricity, etc. ? How it will impact the political balance of power over the next 3 years and other mundane issues of concern to the average ( US ) citizen.

    Ordinary folks don’t give a rat’s fanny about the “science” or the internal shenanigans of some obscure research center. They care about how and when it might impact them personally in ways they may not even realize.

    How about some words of wisdom for all the “Joe Sixpacks” out here in the real world?

  128. Hugh McLean says:

    The Spiegel article is pretty sloppy in specifying just what temperatures it’s referring to, and illustrates how confusion around recent warming vs. cooling results from a failure to recognize that surface temperature measurements reflect but a very small part of a very big puzzle.

    The best brief treatment of the subject I know of is at the Skeptical Science web-site (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm) – it explains not only “noisy” temperature data resulting from the manner in which heat is shuffled around within the Earth system, and documents broad agreement between recent empirical measures of continued ocean heating; satellite measurements of incoming, outgoing and reflected radiation; and the calculations of Earth’s energy imbalance.

  129. The Boss says:

    Global tempterature has changed trough out earths history. U can’t use 10 or 30 years periodes to decide anything.
    1000 yeras ago the temperature was a lot wearmer than today.
    (The Vikings wear thin clothes in wintermonths, and Greeland wars named so not because it was icy.
    What we should ask ourselves is where are vi in between two iceages; half, a quarter, 3/4 ?

  130. Hugh McLean (21:33:01) :

    [...]

    The best brief treatment of the subject I know of is at the Skeptical Science web-site (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm) – it explains not only “noisy” temperature data resulting from the manner in which heat is shuffled around within the Earth system, and documents broad agreement between recent empirical measures of continued ocean heating; satellite measurements of incoming, outgoing and reflected radiation; and the calculations of Earth’s energy imbalance.

    The heat content of the oceans hasn’t increased since 2003 and the radiation imbalance has been negative since 2001…

    “Three distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative imbalance are found: 1960 to the mid 1970s, the mid 1970s to
    2000 and 2001 to present. The respective mean values of radiation imbalance are −0.15, +0.15, and −0.2 to −0.3. These observations are consistent with the occurrence of climate shifts at 1960, the mid-1970s, and early 2001 identified by Swanson and Tsonis. Knowledge of the complex atmospheric-ocean physical processes is not involved or required in making these findings. Global surface temperatures as a function of time are also not required to be known.

    Douglass et al., 2009

    Global warming has “stalled” because the PDO ~60-yr cycle peaked in 2003.

  131. hunter says:

    The problem that underpins these e-mail exchanges is that the data used to support the theory that CO2 ppm increases in the range we are experiencing is triggering a climate catastrophe do not in fact support that theory. This requires the promoters of that theory to massage the data, suppress skeptical reviews, stonewall the dissemination of the information. That means that the claim that the theory is sound, is untrue. This means that policies based on these unsound theories are in themselves not sound.

    The issue is that a complex theory about how GHGs operate on climate is in fact not reliable.

    The issue is that those who are promoting it, knew it, and sought to control the discussion so as to hide the unreliable nature of what they were claiming.

    The magazine is exactly correct in pointing out that global warming has stalled. It has in fact not been happening as claimed at all.

  132. David says:

    Icarus

    Can you write 50 words about the benefits of CO2?

  133. Espen says:

    Icarus (18:32:35) :
    That’s my point though – calculating it the way you did, the two examples give wildly different results for climate sensivity, whereas *in reality*, the final temperature you actually *observed* (at equilibrium) would be the same in both cases, regardless of whether you reached your 400ppm in one day or 70 years. That’s why your calculation was wrong. Climate sensitivity depends on actual concentrations of greenhouse gases, not their rate of change.

    Sigh, it was YOU who provided the ridiculous, contrived one-day example. I simply calculated the climate senstivity from the published CO2 and temperature values for the 69 year period, given the (often asserted) assumption that all warming in this period is due to the increased CO2 levels.


    … not the rate of change; exactly.

    You still don’t get the math at all, do you? Please re-read your junior high school math before making such a fool of yourself.


    When scientists talk about ‘warming in the pipeline’ they don’t mean warming that has already occurred – they mean warming which hasn’t occurred yet but which will do in the future because of the radiative imbalance. This is what a ‘forcing’ is all about. If the Earth is radiating away less energy than it is absorbing from the sun then it will *necessarily* warm up (it can’t possibly do otherwise) but it will do so gradually, not instantly, until the balance is restored. Most of that heat will go into the oceans.

    But NOTHING has been going into the oceans for the last 6 years, so according to your logic above, there’s currently no imbalance at all!


    There was a very large jump in global temperature around 130,000 years ago which does suggest ‘runaway warming’ as you call it but CO2 never got above 280ppm even at the peak, so I’m not sure what that can tell us about today when we have CO2 at 380ppm or so.

    It tells us three things: (1) Much higher temperatures than today are perfectly possible with much less CO2. (2) Much higher temperatures than today did not cause a runaway warming through e.g. the proposed albedo and methane release feedbacks and (3) Much higher temperatures than today did not melt the Greenland ice sheet.

  134. Andy says:

    Doug (10:23:38) :

    Isn’t odd that the warm period in the 40’s has roughly the same slope as the warming period in the 90’s? No CO2 in the 40’s = the same slope as the 90’s with CO2. Obviously no correlation.

    The 40′s did have a little bit of conflict that meant far heavier industrial output than the previous ten years and production dropped back afterwards. I think that might have have had some impact so would be surprised if there was no increase.

  135. IAmDigitap says:

    EMAIL #1120593115:

    “From: Phil Jones
    To: John Christy
    Subject: This and that
    Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005

    John,
    There has been some email traffic in the last few days to a week – quite
    a bit really, only a small part about MSU. The main part has been one of
    your House subcommittees wanting Mike Mann and others and IPCC
    to respond on how they produced their reconstructions and how IPCC
    produced their report.
    In case you want to look at this see later in the email !

    Also this load of rubbish !

    This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached

    article. What an idiot.

    **********

    The SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WOULD COME DOWN ON ME IN NO
    UNCERTAIN TERMS IF I SAID THE WORLD HAD COOLED FROM 1998.

    OK IT HAS BUT IT IS ONLY 7 YEARS OF DATA AND IT ISN’T STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

    **********

    The Australian also alerted me to this blogging ! I think this is the term ! Luckily I don’t live in Australia.”

  136. Icarus says:

    Espen (06:16:22) :
    I simply calculated the climate senstivity from the published CO2 and temperature values for the 69 year period…

    Yes, you did. Now read this page and see if you can figure out why your calculation was wrong:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm

  137. Mariwarcwm says:

    Don’t plants stop growing below 200ppm CO2? If there was only 280ppm before this present increase, isn’t that a bit too close for comfort? If CO2 had gone down by as much as it has gone up, wouldn’t we be in a bit of a pickle. I mean, there’s only a certain amount of corned beef you can hoard.

    I am in a rage: The FT Weekend magazine has an article ‘Meet 10 of the world’s most respected climate change scientists. And the leading sceptic’ They then have: Rahmstorf, John Mitchell,Pachauri, Myles Allen (Oxford) Tim Lenton (East Anglia) Trenberth, Rapley (Science Mus) Susan Solomon (Colorado) Carl Wunsch, Held (Princeton). The sceptic is Richard Lindzen. Why only one? A great choice, but only one? “While we were willing to consider talking to climate change naysayers…. we found that even their initially compelling arguments were rarely backed up by peer-reviewed research’ Aaaaarrrrrgggghh!!!!
    I sent the Editor (editor@ft.com) a sharp letter. I am still cross and might send another, and another….

  138. Espen says:

    Icarus (12:23:37) :
    Yes, you did. Now read this page and see if you can figure out why your calculation was wrong:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm

    The figure on that page is obviously wrong, since it shows 2 degrees immediate warming.

  139. Dr A Burns says:

    A sea breeze has been keeping it very cool on the coast today, despite the forecast record 41 degree temperatures. After the Hadley hacking I may be a bit too conspiracy focussed but it does seem strange that of the 22 Sydney weather stations, all five of the coastal temperature stations are non functional today. Perhaps the bureau is shooting for a Sydney record by knocking out all the cool coastal stations from the Sydney average ?
    http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN60900.shtml

    North Head 22/01:35pm –
    Fort Denison 22/01:34pm –
    Sydney Airport 22/01:35pm 40.5
    Little Bay 22/01:35pm –
    Kurnell 22/01:34pm –
    Wattamolla 22/01:35pm -

  140. Icarus says:

    Espen (17:48:56) :
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm

    The figure on that page is obviously wrong, since it shows 2 degrees immediate warming.

    Espen, the figure is teaching you the difference between the transient climate response and the equilibrium climate sensitivity. The latter includes the additional warming commitment which you failed to take account of in your calculation. The actual *values* are immaterial and are not reflecting the real-world history of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The figure is illustrating the *principle* involved. In the model they’re using, it does indeed show 2C of TCR, but the climate sensitivity is around 3.5C, for the reasons explained in the text -

    “At any time, the ‘additional warming commitment’ is the further increase in temperature, over and above the increase that has already been experienced, that will occur before the system reaches a new equilibrium with radiative forcing stabilised at the current value.”

    In other words, the climate sensitivity is *not* the temperature we measure or predict for the day CO2 reaches double its original value, as you are arguing, it’s that temperature *plus* the additional warming commitment which will only be realised decades or centuries later, subject to exchange of energy with the deep ocean – i.e. the equilibrium climate sensitivity.

    Hope this helps.

  141. Spector says:

    I have noticed that a video titled “Climate Change — the objections” by potholer54 appears to contain a typical misrepresentation of carbon dioxide issue.

    In this video, part two of a three part series, which purports to be a serious and balanced discussion of the climate change debate, he says that carbon dioxide acts as a blanket blocking all wavelengths from 8 to 18 micrometers — effectively in concert with dissolved H2O, stopping most of the normal thermal radiation in this band.

    Yet at RealScience.org I found a chart in a post entitled “Part II: What Angstrom didn’t know” indicating that the baseline, pre-industrial CO2 level blocked wavelengths from about 13.5 to 17 micrometers. With four times as much CO2 in the atmosphere (almost three times our current level); the indicated blocking range is 13 to 17.5 micrometers. I find it hard to accept the notion that we have a serious carbon dioxide crisis with such a minimal change indicated.

  142. Icarus says:

    Spector (05:32:07) :
    …at RealScience.org I found a chart in a post entitled “Part II: What Angstrom didn’t know” indicating that the baseline, pre-industrial CO2 level blocked wavelengths from about 13.5 to 17 micrometers. With four times as much CO2 in the atmosphere (almost three times our current level); the indicated blocking range is 13 to 17.5 micrometers. I find it hard to accept the notion that we have a serious carbon dioxide crisis with such a minimal change indicated.

    From what I’ve read it’s a bit more complicated than that. Might be worth having a look at this page for a detailed explanation:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archive/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

  143. Spector says:

    In my previous post, read realclimate.org for RealScience.org for the source of the graph — my mistake.

    From another source, I note that various computer models predict a range of one to three degree Celsius global temperature change per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. These models, however, do not include a number of possible negative feedback effects — physicalgeography.net / fundamentals / 7h . html (FUNDAMENTALS, CHAPTER 7: Introduction to the Atmosphere (h). The Greenhouse Effect.)

    Yes, this problem is complex and highly non-linear as the energy flow of thermal radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the radiating surface.

  144. Espen says:

    KlausB: More, this article – as much others before – you won’t see it in German language, not online, not in printing.

    It’s in German language here:
    http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,661308,00.html

  145. Espen says:

    Icarus (03:20:18) :

    The actual *values* are immaterial and are not reflecting the real-world history of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The figure is illustrating the *principle* involved. In the model they’re using, it does indeed show 2C of TCR, but the climate sensitivity is around 3.5C, for the reasons explained in the text -

    Well, actually stated goals talk about less than 2C warming through stabilizing at 450-500ppm, don’t they? I can’t remember right now if that’s 2C compared to today or to 300ppm levels, if it’s the latter, 2C equilibrium warming at 450ppm corresponds to 3.4 per doubling, so in the range of this figure.


    which will only be realised decades or centuries later, subject to exchange of energy with the deep ocean – i.e. the equilibrium climate sensitivity.

    I understand this (but thank you for explaining), but my point is that if this model is correct, we should see this energy storage in the oceans already happening.

  146. Icarus says:

    Spector (13:49:11) :

    From another source, I note that various computer models predict a range of one to three degree Celsius global temperature change per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. These models, however, do not include a number of possible negative feedback effects

    Which negative feedback effects are those? What makes me a little wary of such claims is the evidence that the Earth has been quite a bit warmer at various times in the past. If negative feedback effects didn’t limit warming to (say) 1°C in the past, then why should we expect that they will do so in the future? It doesn’t make a great deal of difference whether warming comes from greenhouse gases or from changing solar irradiance, and we know that the latter is well correlated with large changes in global average temperature , so why not expect a similar magnitude from changes in greenhouse gases?

  147. Spector says:

    RE: Icarus (16:20:00):

    “It doesn’t make a great deal of difference whether warming comes from greenhouse gases or from changing solar irradiance…”

    Again, I believe the real issue here is do we or do we not have a “Carbon Dioxide Crisis.” This is because the proposed solution is to shut down our modern economy to stop the flow of human created carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If the real cause of “global warming” were solar variability or anthropogenic carbon tetrafluoride, then we would all be running off on the wrong track to no purpose.

    My last comment was a taken directly from the reference at physicalgeography.com. “For example, many models cannot properly simulate the negative [feedback] effects that increased cloud cover…”

    I believe Dr. Richard S. Lindzen’s recent paper shows measured data demonstrating that heat transfer increases with increasing temperature due to these same negative feedback effects while the IPCC models purportedly show heat transfer being pinched off to produce a thermal catastrophe.

  148. Richard says:

    More than 100 Antarctic icebergs – and possibly even hundreds of them – are floating towards New Zealand.
    “Icebergs coming en masse”
    4:00 AM Tuesday Nov 24, 2009 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10611252

    This could possibly make us a bit cooler?

  149. Mike Odin says:

    Greenpeas succeeds in extracting CO2
    from atmosphere of Norilsk city–
    thereby
    creating frigid catastrophic cooling–

    http://englishrussia.com/?p=2495

    satire, sort of.

  150. Mike Odin says:

    Another bit of reality–

    Early sea ice formation traps
    Greenland towns and stops supplies
    until spring–
    http://sermitsiaq.gl/indland/article103562.ece?lang=EN

    First time in 20 years–
    Early sea ice formation traps
    Greenland narwhales in ice
    and they are shot–
    http://sermitsiaq.gl/indland/article103734.ece?lang=EN

Comments are closed.