The Powerline blog has done an excellent job of summarizing the issues surrounding the Climatgate/CRUtape Letters in the past couple of days. Since they reference WUWT in the most recent article, it seems relevant to also post here.
It seems Dr. Jones frets about the “weather, not climate” issue that we have been so often chastised for, whenever WUWT covers a record cold event, or a record snow event. We’ve seen quite a few of those lately. It seems CRU is concerned this “weather” may become a trend. Maybe they’ll just blame it on China and SO2 emissions. There’s an app for that. – Anthony
We’ve written about the leaked emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Center here, here and here. Another intensely interesting email thread, which doesn’t seem to have gotten much notice, relates to the fact that the last decade, contrary to the alarmists’ predictions, has tended to get cooler, not warmer.
At the end of 2008, the scientists at East Anglia predicted that 2009 would be one of the warmest years on record:
On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4∞C above the 1961-1990 average of 14 ∫ C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009.
We know now that the alarmists’ prediction for 2009 didn’t come true. What’s interesting is that in January of this year, another climate alarmist named Mike MacCracken wrote to Phil Jones and another East Anglia climatologist, saying that their predicted warming may not occur:
Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting…and I would expect the analysis you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from China and India…. While I understand there are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted).
That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present sulfate distribution–most is right over China, for example, suggesting that the emissions are near the surface–something also that is, so to speak, ‘clear’ from the very poor visibility and air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low albedo–and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence.
Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit warming–I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate loading…. Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean…. Indeed, rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won’t get rained out for 10 days or so.
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.
Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc.
Sulphur dioxide, like carbon dioxide, is emitted as a result of industrial activity. Unlike carbon dioxide, it is actually a pollutant. But whereas carbon dioxide tends to warm, sulphur dioxide tends to cool, and MacCracken suggests that SO2 emissions from China and India may well be offsetting the temperature impact of CO2. The net effect of human activity, therefore, may be much closer to neutral than the alarmists have been claiming.
How did the British scientists, whose careers are committed to the proposition that human activity is causing catastrophic warming of the globe, respond? Surprisingly, Tim Johns reacted with insouciance:
Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B scenario (for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment models shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an issue for us in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running models with a new mitigation/stabilization scenario “E1” (that has large emissions reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated using the IMAGE IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated by a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic secondary SO2 emissions peak in the early 21st C – not present in the IMAGE E1 scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions from 2000. The A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a decline rather than the secondary emissions peak, but I can’t say for sure which is most likely to be “realistic”.
The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is quite marked though in terms of global temperature response in the first few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO simulations, reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus some divergence in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). We think the different short term warming responses are largely attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories.
So far we’ve run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4 scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are doing similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be analysed in a multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) prescribes similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation details might well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt scenarios and their SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven’t studied the CMIP5 experiment fine print to that extent).
Cheers,
Tim
Got that? Here is a translation: assumptions about SO2 emissions do have a “quite marked…impact” on global temperatures under the warmists’ various models. What impact they have varies from model to model. Which model is correct (if any)? Who knows? But as a result of increased SO2 in the atmosphere, there is “potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C.”
That must come as a great relief, since everyone involved in this exchange has been telling the public that global warming is an imminent catastrophe. But no! The prospect of a “distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C[entury]” is bad, because “skeptics” would “love” it!
Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit, now weighs in. Does he welcome the idea that, contrary to his own predictions, there may be little or no warming in coming decades? No!
Tim, Chris,
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like -half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!
Still a way to go before 2014.
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Better that the Earth experience the cataclysm of global warming than that the skeptics be proved right? It makes one wonder how seriously Jones believes in the catastrophe of global warming. Jones then frets about whether the weather is really as cool as the weathermen are saying:
Chris – I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather forecasts. Maybe because I’m in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems a bit over the top re the cold. Where I’ve been for the last 20 days (in Norfolk) it doesn’t seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.
So the very climate scientists who keep saying that global warming will be an unparalleled disaster for humanity are telling the Earth: Heat up, damn it!
But let’s go back to the main point. Apparently the alarmist climatologists acknowledge that SO2, frequently emitted in conjunction with CO2, nullifies, wholly or in part, any warming tendency associated with the CO2. What is the net effect? This is, obviously, an empirical, quantitative question. But these scientists can’t answer it, not only because each of their models gives a different answer, but because they have no idea how much SO2 is being emitted by the main countries that produce that pollutant, India and China. Having no idea what the facts are, their models are useless. It does appear, however, that one obvious alternative to impoverishing humanity in a most-likely-futile effort to stave off global warming would be emitting a whole lot of SO2 over the ocean, and continuing those emissions indefinitely rather than banning them as is currently contemplated by the warmists’ models.
Climate science is in its infancy, and every proposition is controversial. What climate scientists like those at East Anglia don’t know dwarfs what they do know. They can produce a model for every occasion, but are the models any good? If so, which one? One thing we know for sure is that they don’t generate reliable predictions. In every scientific field other than global warming, a scientific hypothesis that generates false predictions is considered disproved. When it comes to global warming, however, there is no such thing as falsification. Which is the ultimate evidence that the alarmist scientists are engaged in a political enterprise, not a scientific one.
Please visit the Powerline blog here.
So, what I don’t get, if it’s hotter then the hottest it’s ever been, where are the grapes growing in London like the Medieval warm period? Can grapes grow in this?
Phil Jones tells us that global warming is the great evil and then in the same breath hopes for a warmer future, just to stick two fingers up at sceptics.
Isn’t that veering on psychopathy?
Bets are they were going to go with the second method.
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of
warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I do not
agree with this.
Acid rain cures global warming?
I vote for warmer.
Actually, last I checked, globally, 2009 may be within spitten’ distance of a top five. All depends on how much the El Nino impacts Nov and Dec.
Of course, since it wasn’t “fair” to point out dropping temperatures during a La Nina year, it’s not “fair” to point out rising temps during an El Nino year, is it?
Of course, that would never happen.
Hey I just downloaded the Zip from peer to peer, opened up an email and found this (rather disappointed scientist):
***
From: Gary Funkhouser
To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
Keith,
Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central
and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I’ll send
it to you.
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material,
but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk
something out of that.
***
From 0843161829.txt
China and India to the rescue!
Now this is something I can appreciate. What looks like happening is decent science. Someone proposes a theory, and make a prediction (that there would be cooling). Their prediction has come true, though that may be simply coincidence. More research is required. eg. What are the S02 levels in paleoclimatology? Is there a way to tell? Can we get a graph that combines CO2, S02 and temperature?
I think if someone gives me a billion now, I can start work on this, and I’ll be back this time next year for another cash installment….
I studied vineyards, today there’s some 400 although none further north than Westow, Yorks. The furthest recorded in the MWP is at Hadrians Wall, further north. Vineyards were maionly attached to monastries where the records are still kept.. however, there’s more interest in wine thesedays than in those
From Australia today:
Longer November heatwave 130 years ago
‘Apparently the alarmist climatologists acknowledge that SO2, frequently emitted in conjunction with CO2, nullifies, wholly or in part, any warming tendency associated with the CO2.’
Or could it exceed the affect of CO2?
Or could it greatly exceed the affect of CO2?
Especially if we do not know how much SO2 is being emitted.
[snip -lets not repeat the same mistake made by others]
The Warmists are going to be in for a big surprise. The -PDO longterm cycle is here and the signaling of the next 3 or 4 solar cycles will end up something like the Dalton Minimum. Analoging +ENSO events, one always seems to happen around this time in the solar cycle. In the end, more Nina events will outnumber Nino events in the next 30 years. This does not favor the global warming crowd.
Well-said:
”What climate scientists […] don’t know dwarfs what they do know.”
More funding is needed – to research natural climate variations – and it should NOT go to the shysters.
These guys need to look beyond atmospheric chemistry.
Greg (19:57:35) :
“So, what I don’t get, if it’s hotter then the hottest it’s ever been, where are the grapes growing in London like the Medieval warm period? Can grapes grow in this?”
There are vineyards in the UK today, and I found this:
“London’s first vineyard planted”
http://www.decanter.com/news/281860.html
The vines today are hybrids, cold resistant. Here’s an example:
“The three new grape varieties are broadly adapted to the cold winter climate of East Coast wine growing regions and produce high-quality wines.”
http://www.winebusiness.com/wbm/?go=getArticle&dataId=45482
“Roger Carr (20:29:34) :
From Australia today:
Longer November heatwave 130 years ago
12:57 EDT The most recent heatwave was record-breaking for many areas, but in November 1878 a heatwave lasted almost twice as long, according to weatherzone.com.au.”
That’s really interesting however, all other MSM outlest I have viewed so far report recent weeks here in the south and east of Australia as being the hottest ever, record breaking events.
Two things here:
1.) .4 C warming over a monkeyed 1961-1990 average is still a monkeyed figure prediction.
2.) S02 emitted from China & India as the solution to the unexpected cooling is playing the Climate Change card off the bottom of the deck. Why not just come out and say “Better Climate through Chemistry” is what we are aiming for?
We had 2 days of hot weather and our PM said it was proof of global warming, now we are having 2 days of cold weather but he hasn’t said its proof of global cooling – I’m confused !
Patrick Davis (21:04:48) :
Two sets of books on temps.
One is truncated to make room for ‘new’ highs while the other one is the full record and shows it much warmer in the past. 1878 was warmer in Australia, but if your looking back only 50 years or so, 1878 is never considered.
AGW mischief.
The truncated record is politically correct, don’tcha know.
Maybe a component of warming (if real) was from our 70’s campaign to reduce acid rain & the associated reduction in sulfates – it’s our fault because we’re keeping the Earth too dang clean ! That would be highly ironic if true.
The BBC offer this [in their usual AGW format] and I am not expecting any less bias towards AGW in the near future.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375576.stm
Where is Richard Black these days?
Hey Greg at the top… what I don’t get is that you ask such a stupid question about grapes, when a simple google will show you that there are many vineyards in England. http://www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html
As for the article, it is quite clear that they are confident the greenhouse warming trend is there, and hope that it results in warmer years so that people get the message and take action, rather than have some other forcing cool things a bit resulting in a sceptical field day.
He does not hope it warms just to be proved right, or to spite skeptics… he hopes it warms so that it convinces folks to take action before it is too late.
Alarmists had claimed SO2 caused the 1940 to 1970 cooling … then CO2 was supposed to have caused warming to 1998, now SO2 cooling again. Of course man’s CO2 output was very low before 1945, so the rapid warming between 1910 and 1940 was caused by who knows what, but certainly anything other than natural causes. Are they serious ?
The problem the Met Office have to counter more and more is that the more they push the CRU and their own warmest favouring guys viewpoint and the more the British Public sees it clashing with “reality” even if it is short term the more they will feel uncomfortable. Even this year they were dragged over the coals because the yet again forecasted “BBQ summer” did not materialise ( at least by that point, September was very nice!). That’s 2 summers in a row.
They should be just putting out forecasts based on the current factors and not try to add a weighting based on long term warming as well. That will continue to make them overestimate temps etc.
Andy
Mattb, nice try, trying to defend a corrupt scientist who has shown himself to have no morals, ethics, or any sense of what the scientific method is all about.
He should resign immediately, and if he won’t do that, then he should be fired.
As a person who greatly values and respects science, honest scientific research and the scientific method, it disgusts me beyond belief that these clowns have tainted the whole realm of climate science and all those honest and hard-working scientists out there. The best thing that climate researchers can do now is to demand an in-depth investigation into this whole sorry scandal in order to save their field of science from ridicule. Those climate scientists who have defended the indefensible (i.e. Phil Jones and his ilk) only cast themselves, and their profession, into utter disrepute.
Anthony – that reply is like expecting me to accept being told that Hitler had a pumpkin for a head, and when I say “no he didn’t” you say “oh yeah nice try , trying to defend the head of the Nazis and all his crimes against humanity.”
There is a real risk that the more tenuous links people make to genuinely innocent portions of the emails, the less likely you are to get traction with the interesting bits… heared of crying wolf anyone.
There is nothing in the email exchange above… waste of time thread.
Mattb:
“He does not hope it warms just to be proved right, or to spite skeptics… he hopes it warms so that it convinces folks to take action before it is too late.”
So, you’re saying he hopes it heats up so that folks will take action to cool it down? Wouldn’t it just be better all around to hope that the cooling (or non-heating) trend continues?
Craig
No madman, not if your opinion of the science was that the greenhouse forcing was being opposed by a short term cooling, which would eventually cease, leaving the full force of GHG warming. So in this example one would assume that China will eventually clean up its act (as developed economies did), removing the cooling forcing of the SO2, and warming returns after we’ve wasted 5 years where we could have been addressing emissions.
You don;t have to agree with that assessment of the science, but that is the crux of what he is saying.
are we having an ENSO effect or not? november temps are 2-3 degr above normal so far in Iowa
Stuart Varney (subbing for Neil Cavuto on Fox) also had a segment on the hacked e mails— along with a warmist-apologist.
now if we can get this on Oreilley————
Mattb wrote: “There is nothing in the email exchange above… waste of time thread.”
Typical, “Nothing here to see. Move on.” mentality.
In fact, the email thread is interesting. Forget the vineyard distraction for a moment. What does the email thread show? Admission of lack of data, lack of knowledge of resulting effect; clear pre-conceived notions about what “should” happen in the climate; hoping the data will change change in order to save the theory, rather than a willingness to re-examine the theory in light of the latest data; juvenile paranoia about being proved wrong; etc.
Pretty pathetic, and this is just one email exchange at the tip of the iceberg.
There used to be a saying about someone blacklisted and shunned, “Sent to Coventry”.
From now on it might be “Sent to East Anglia”.
We’ve had one or two hot days here in the inner west of Sydney, Australia and the media are lapping it up and blowing it all out of proportion (Well there’s a surprise). Almost all of the bush fire near people/property were started by arsonists and/or power line failure, some were as a result of lightening too.
Today, although there is nearly a 20c degree diffeernce to that over the w/e, 40+, 39-ish where I live (And it was horrid to have to work almost the entire w/e in that heat without aircon), predictions still abound….”It’ll be worce than last summer” etc etc.
We’ll see.
Here a chance for you to say what you think. It say to Send your greetings to COP15 – the UN Climate Change Conference 2009.But im sure we can think of something to say.
http://en.cop15.dk/climate+greetings .
Patrick Davis (23:04:51) — Back to Hanrahan, eh, Patrick?
“We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan
In accents most forlorn…
Global Warming Religion Unaffected by Massive Data Fraud
Reaction to the antics of the man-made global warming zealots don’t include any recantation of their religious doctrine.
Myron Ebell, director of global warming and international environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a US free-market think-tank, said the e-mail exchanges were a “scandal that has knocked down the global warming house of cards”.
Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, called for a thorough investigation into the matters raised by the e-mails. He said: “The selective disclosure and dissemination of the messages has created the impression of impropriety, and the only way of clearing the air now would be through a rigorous investigation…There needs to be an assurance that these e-mail messages have not revealed inappropriate conduct in the preparation of journal articles and in dealing with requests from other researchers for access to data.” He was more sympathetic about the e-mails railing against sceptics, saying climate researchers had been the target of “an aggressive campaign by so-called “deniers” over a number of years”.
Damage Control
Some climate change experts moved to discount the damage done, arguing that the language used against skeptics amounted to little more than the normal banter used on e-mail among colleagues, and that the basics of climate change science were not called into question by the e-mails.
Prof John Burrows at the UK’s Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said: “The peer review process was created to try to avoid conspiracies on an issue…The current discussion is a perfect example that, while it doesn’t always look perfect, an open debate, backed up by peer review, is what science is all about.” But he said scientific consensus that global warming was happening and attributable in large part to human actions was “established” fact and not called into question by the e-mails.
Prof Stephan Harrison, of Exeter University, agreed: “Irrespective of what may or may not have been said in some private e-mails, this doesn’t change the physical properties of carbon dioxide, and doesn’t change the fact that human activity is warming the planet. There’s a lot of politics in all of this debate, but it is the science that has to drive policy.”
The whole SO2 theory is ad hoc used BS, since “they” were not able to explain 1940-1980 colder period. Now we know, that it is caused by oceanic oscillations.
Had the SO2 be responsible for present cooling, China/India´s industrial areas should have experienced the most colder anomalies on Earth. But this is not the case. Industrial part of China has warmed by 0.8 deg C within last 50 years (value without UHI, Phil Jones own study) which is in line with the rest of northern extratropics.
I’m guessing, but Phil Jones must be thinking about retirement soon. He works in the public sector so will probably have a juicy defined benefit index linked pension. Then there is the lure of the well paid lecture circuit. The guy is famous after all now. Expect him to retire after a ‘decent interval’ – 3 to 6 months.
PS. Sorry to give the moderators yet another post to process. I hope you guys get some sleep anytime soon! Thanks for everyone’s hard work on this story. Time to make my 2nd donation.
It is true that in the UK last winter, Norfolk, or rather a little triangular shaped bit of it, extending roughly from Bacton to south of Great Yarmouth, and inland as far as UEA at Norwich, was the only part of the country not to be hit by very severe winter weather, blizzards and so on. It was also apparently much warmer. Acquaintances living there would also ask what on earth the fuss was about when we talked. Meanwhile, in most of the rest of the country, people were freezing and getting snowed in.
Professor Jones needs to get out more, and not mistake local effects for national ones, still less global ones. Or maybe he needs to watch the national news. This was a local warm anomaly in an area measuring roughly 15 miles on one coastal side by about 25 miles on the other two.
BBC’s Newsnight Covers Massive Data Fraud
See the first item on Newsnight with interviews of some main players
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p6bn0/Newsnight_23_11_2009/
The item lasts 13 minutes 49 seconds, and doesn’t include any admission of wrongdoing by UEA.
Mattb, I for one don’t need what he said spun by an apologist/propagandist like yourself, it is very clear what he means. The bottom line is also absolutely clear as a bell. AGW has, as we have been saying all along, is either non-existent or overstated to meet a political agenda only. There is no threat to the planet nor any to human life only to our wallets and our freedom from interference and control by the eco-left.
Of course the alarmists are insouciant about the SO2 explanation. They concoct it precisely as a way to continue to blame whatever happens on human activity. If it starts getting cold, then again, human population and economic activity are at fault and must be curtailed.
All evidence says that the primary driver of global climate is solar magnetic activity, not CO2 or SO2 or any other human cause. CO2 and SO2 have SOME effect, but it is relatively trivial. The obvious explanation for the cooling is our quiescent sun, just as with previous episodes of prolonged solar minimum. But the alarmists will never mention the obvious. Only human causes will fit their luddite agenda.
They are adherants of an eco-religion that sees human population growth and economic activity gobbling up the natural world. In this zero sum game, they side with the supposedly imperiled natural world, and hence need some excuse to drastically curtail human activity.
Global warming science alarming, say climate experts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375576.stm
Three UK groups studying climate change have issued an unprecedented statement about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research Council say the science underpinning climate change is more alarming than ever.
They say the 2007 UK floods, 2003 heatwave in Europe and recent droughts were consistent with emerging patterns.
Their comments came ahead of crunch UN climate talks in Copenhagen next month.
Jeff L (21:26:39) “Maybe a component of warming (if real) was from our 70’s campaign to reduce acid rain & the associated reduction in sulfates – it’s our fault because we’re keeping the Earth too dang clean ! That would be highly ironic if true.”
That’s the kind of thing they DESPERATELY want you to imagine. You see, it HAS to be anthropogenic to support their politics (which is why they are STUCK scientifically).
The irony is that if these guys would just come out and say, “Our goal is to oppose toxic pollution,” people like me (an ecologist & former stats teacher, with years of professional experience analyzing weather/climate data) would support them instead of having to cut them down for misleading the public with climate models based on untenable assumptions. Their mistake is deliberately & erroneously conflating a real issue with fabricated one and the cost is a blow to both science & the environmental movement, two worthwhile endeavors that should be supported with forthright honesty, rather than undermined by nefarious subversion.
Greg (19:57:35) :
So, what I don’t get, if it’s hotter then the hottest it’s ever been, where are the grapes growing in London like the Medieval warm period? Can grapes grow in this?
Watch last weeks Hugh Fearnley-Whittinstall The River Garden cottage guy. I happened to catch part of it and there is an item about a someone in London making his own wine from Pinot Noir grapes (I think) grown in his backyard.
Not really evidence of the man made element to anything but quite interesting.
How funny to hear this guy lamenting the lack of scientific integrity.
Isn’t he the one who day after day was on page 1 of WordPress preaching it was all a hoax?
The strange thing is how his views and their singular orientation match his photo. Incredible. It is as if his views were part of his DNA.
Is it “settled science” that tropospheric SO2 actually is a significant cooler? I know that SO2 from large volcanic eruptions cool, but in these events the SO2 reaches the stratosphere.
“SandyInDerby (00:36:48) :
Greg (19:57:35) :
So, what I don’t get, if it’s hotter then the hottest it’s ever been, where are the grapes growing in London like the Medieval warm period? Can grapes grow in this?
Watch last weeks Hugh Fearnley-Whittinstall The River Garden cottage guy. I happened to catch part of it and there is an item about a someone in London making his own wine from Pinot Noir grapes (I think) grown in his backyard.
Not really evidence of the man made element to anything but quite interesting.”
You can grow almost anything anywhere, in small quantities for personal consumption. I had mangos growing in front my garden here in Strathfield, Inner Western Sydney. They were small and not a sweet as those that come from the tropical north, Queensland, where they are farmed, but they grew and you could eat them. I grew banans in South Yarra, Melbourne. Again, small and not as sweet, but still, edible.
That’s the differnce, I believe, between growing grapes (Or anything) for your own consumption and farming them large-scale in vinyards for wider consumption. If vinyards were viable in Southern England today, as they were in the MWP, then grapes would be grown again. But there are EU subsidies to consider now and, as I understand it, EU subsidies favour crops grown for bio-fuels.
Greenland was named Greenland for a reason and it had nothing to do with emissions from SUV’s, Flatscreen TV’s, garden patio heaters and power stations.
IMO The River Garden Cottage is an interesting view on living, growing stuff and how food is produced however, you need quite a bit of land to achieve that and there just aren’t enough planets like the Earth for everyone to live like that. In New Zealand, we called these “life stylers” who had 1 acre of land or more with running stream and plenty of wind. I nearly made it work, but ran out of money. It was rediculously expensive off-grid power sources, and at that time, circa 2002, a 12v fridge (To match the voltage of the generating system for maximum efficiency) was NZ$12,000.
If you have money, time, land, you can grow food and sell/trade surplus. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?
Dr Phil Jones – “all gut feeling, no science”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=440&filename=1098472400.txt
===
Bottom line – their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.
Must got to Florence now. Back in Nov 1.
Cheers
Phil
===
I hope this charlatan gets the sack soon.
I wouldn’t read too much into the growing of grapes! They actually do rather well in Urban settings as it’s quite a few degrees warmer (yes, ubran heat island!) and there are quite hardy breeds out there. If we had a thriving orange, lemon and cocoa industry, then I might agree.
Paul Z. (01:34:48) :
Dr Phil Jones – “all gut feeling, no science”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=440&filename=1098472400.txt
===
Bottom line – their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.
Must got to Florence now. Back in Nov 1.
Cheers
Phil
===
I hope this charlatan gets the sack soon.
Scientists are allowed to have ‘gut feelings’. When you see them presented as objective evidence of AGW in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, let us know.
The estasblishment are itching for a way to clamp dowen on the internet. The Rockefellers ( Richest dynasty in the US ) state that the internet is the greatest terrorism threat in the world.
An infomation war over climategate is set to begin.
The establishment will be pushing a new cyber terrorism threat, legislation, and internet freedom crackdown.
SandyInDerby (00:36:48) :
Those grapes were being grown under glass. It’s been done for decades.
Greg (19:57:35) :
I grew uncovered grapes in Hertford, north of Enfield, between 1976 and 1982 (we moved). The 3 varieties were Leon Millot, midseason, black, dessert/wine grape. Berries are juicy and of excellent flavour. Bunches are of medium size. Very vigorous vine. Crops heavily. Useful for covering walls. Good resistance to mildew. Very hardy. Crops early October http://www.bunchgrapes.com/leon_millot_grapes.html Syval Blanc & Madeleine Angevine http://www.bunchgrapes.com/leon_millot_grapes.html
The wines I produced were “interesting” shall we say!!
The grapes being grown at Forty Hall Organic Farm in the London Borough of Enfield are not hybrids (a cross between American and European varieties). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacchus_%28grape%29
Leon Millot, being a high vigour hybrid is also being very successfully grown by friends in Suffolk, along the top and sides of a linking pergola in their garden, (I gave them cuttings). It grows like the clappers there and this photo from Italy will give you the general idea, although not quite as ancient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Settimo_Vittone_Tupiun.JPG
Roman vines transplanted well to Britain as it was warmer then. Since then, viticulturists have improved varieties and some German vines, such as Bacchus produce better wine in the UK, due to it being colder. http://www.englishwineproducers.com/grapes.htm
“where are the grapes growing in London like the Medieval warm period?”: lay off, chaps, this is a really feeble argument. There are lots of commercial vineyards in the south of England, and they have nothing to do with bloody biofuels. Try googling Jane McQuitty or Jancis Robinson for reviews of some of the successful wines produced.
It’s foolish to make arguments that are as pathetic as those advanced by the climate hysterics.
“In every scientific field other than global warming, a scientific hypothesis that generates false predictions is considered disproved.” I think this is the key point. What has happened to the Scientific method? With regard to GW it appears to be missing.
Addendum and correction. Seyval Blanc not Syval Blanc
Seyval Blanc (or Seyve-Villard hybrid number 5276[1]) is a hybrid wine grape variety used to make white wines. Its vines ripen early, are productive and are suited to fairly cool climates.
Seyval Blanc is grown mainly in England and the Finger Lakes region of upstate New York,[2] as well as to a lesser extent in Canada.
Seyval Blanc was created either by Bertille Seyve, or his son-in-law Villard, as a cross of Seibel 5656 and Rayon d’Or (Seibel 4986),[4] and was used to create the hybrid grape St. Pepin.
Seyval Blanc has a characteristic citrus element in the aroma and taste, as well as a minerality that may be compared to white Burgundy. It is often oaked and subjected to a stage of malolactic fermentation.
As it contains some non-vinifera genes, it is outlawed by the EU authorities for wine production, which is an issue of conflict with the English wine industry.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_global_warming_conspiracy_news_spreads/
Lord Monckton says those implicated by the leaked emails are “crooks”:
The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.
Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up…
(P)rocurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/
Lord Monckton says those implicated by the leaked emails are “crooks”:
The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.
Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up…
(P)rocurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.
I knew something stinks.
According to John Daly/Dr. Landscheidt, the Sun doesn’t lie.
See here, everything ran fine and in harmony… until a big divergence appeared in 1979!
http://img.umweltluege.de/curious1.png
This was the date, the fudging seems to have started.
What I’ve done now (AND THIS IS ONLY MY PRIVATE OPINION!), is to take 1979 as starting point and calculate all data upside down from that date on.
Et voila, here is the harmony again!
http://img.umweltluege.de/curious2.png
Isn’t it nice, how it fits to the Sun again?
And furthermore… you can check it against almost all data, including PDO, SOI, Be10 ice core, Sun’s UV <300nm, and lots more.
It will show all the same.
I have looked for energy imbalance, transition to satellite data and others as the reason for the divergence, when I suddenly came to the conceit to simply invert the divergence.
Now it seems all so clear.
I’m concerned the BBC have already started shreading the evidence. At 10pm 23rd November 2009, BBC news broadcast a live debate about climateGate scandal with an american AGW skeptic Dr Singer. The overall impression was that the skeptics ‘won’ the debate.
A web search this morning ( 24th ) doesn’t find this BBC debate.
Now that orders ‘use this to push for cyberterrorism law! and don’t let the skeptics get their view across’ from the top will be filtering down to the BBC, they’ll be cutting out the news that doesn’t serve this agenda.
Did anyone have their TV recorder on?
Hopefully it’s just a case of lag between TV broadcast and internet upload.
Just see how temperatures have been fudged UPWARDS!
At 05:35 PM 5/5/99 +0100, D Parker wrote:
>To Jim Hansen jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> (& copies to Chris Folland, Ian Macadam, Phil Jones)
>Jim
> …
> …
> …
>To help further, can you provide annual maps, 1989 through 1998, of Jones
>(land), GISS (stations, 1200 km) and Jones minus GISS in the format of Figure
>3 of your mailed illustrations? Web or ftp access would be better than paper,
>if possible.
>
>Thanks and regards
>
>David 5 May 1999
> …
> …
> …
> *****************************************************
>
>Table 1. Annual Southern Hemisphere Anomalies (deg C) Relative to 1961-1990
>
> GISS Jones
>
> 1990 0.250 0.30
> 1991 0.265 0.32
> 1992 0.023 0.14
> 1993 -0.027 0.24
> 1994 0.033 0.35
> 1995 0.069 0.37
> 1996 0.191 0.23
> 1997 0.033 0.34
> 1998 0.317 0.60
>
>
> *****************************************************
These were the Southern hemisphere annual mean temperatures at 1999.
For the same period TODAY the GISS SH annual mean entries are:
GISS2009 GISS2009-GISS1999
1990 0.334 + 0.084
1991 0.364 + 0.099
1992 0.113 + 0,090
1993 0.009 + 0.036
1994 0.151 + 0.118
1995 0.187 + 0.118
1996 0.363 + 0.172
1997 0.189 + 0.156
1998 0.504 + 0.187
Fudged upward by almost 0.2 °C, and this only until 1999!
meemoe_uk (02:45:25).
Here’s the BBC program with Fred Singer and Bob Watson (havn’t seen it yet) :
John M (20:11:04)
All depends on how well they can fiddle the figures. They stripped off all data back to jan 2009 at the moment the climate gate story broke.
>…Better that the Earth experience the cataclysm of global warming than that the skeptics be proved right?
Psych 101: Once someone takes a public stand on an issue, or becomes known to the public because of that stance, it becomes extremely difficult and painful for that person to admit that his or her assertions were wrong.
The problem faced by these scientists is that they are considered the ultimate authority on this issue. Reporters and politicians who championed AGW so strenuously may suffer embarrassment, and their plans may crumble to dust, but they have an excuse: they relied on the word of the scientists, and who in this world can we trust if not the scientists?
These scientists will have no such skirts to hide behind, and ultimately, all of this is going to end up on their heads. I do not feel for sorry for them.
The problem is the discontinuity between ALL the proxies and the thermometer record from around 1960.
Either the thermometers are showing too high or the proxies are showing too low.Possibly both.
I suspect a mixture of UHI effects and bad site management with an unrepresentative sensor distribution as regards thermometers. The satellites are now helping us with that.
As regards proxies I suspect that they are too coarse and slow a measure to reflect the full peaks and troughs of ocean induced temperature variability in the air. All the proxies probably smooth out the true range of variability.
That would mean that the proxy based historical record is misleading because all the peaks and troughs would be too low (during peaks) or too high (during troughs) in relation to the temperatures that would have been shown by thermometers if they had existed at the time.
Thus the air temperature peak of the MWP could well have been as high as or even higher than the recent peak yet there would still be be a current divergence between the ongoing proxy and temperature records. Indeed there would always be a divergence either up or down at the peaks and troughs of natural warming and cooling. In between times they might be roughly comparable but such periods might be too short to capture in both methods simultaneously.
That is a likely explanation but to consider it would have wrecked the hockey stick so they smoothed the two incompatible records into one another to ‘hide’ the downward background trend implied by the proxy methods and reversed it to follow the rising trend in the thermometer records.
Ignoring evidence that is staring you in the face in favour of a ‘preferred’ scenario and ‘doctoring’ the evidence for public consumption is not recommended.
The email from Phil Jones is the clincher in judging whether it was deliberation or incompetence. They obviously knew that what they were proposing to do was wrong but did it anyway.
Greg (19:57:35) :
“So, what I don’t get, if it’s hotter then the hottest it’s ever been, where are the grapes growing in London like the Medieval warm period? Can grapes grow in this?”
Well yes they do! My vine has black grapes & produces lots of small sweet tasing bunches. However, they do not ripen before November, & with the usual stormy sessions (trust me, I’m NOT a climate scientist) during October/November many bunches fall off. For the UK generally, take a line from the Thames esturary to the Seven esturary (Bristol) & that provides the latitude for grape growning. However, I have mentioned this before, what many people do here is build a greenhouse in brickwork up to a certain level beforfe the glazing is added. They then punch a hole in the brickwork to allow an externally planted vine to be trained internally so that the roots get the nutrients & soil moisture, & the stem gets the protection from the elements. It is only relatively recently that commercial growers have made good businesses since the late 50’s onwards. As I understand it, from discussion with a retired former local grower who now works for the Exeter Diocese, it takes at least 7 years to get the first commercial crop from scratch. Sounds lark hard work to me although the end product was worth it!
What history tells us is that the Romans grew black grapes as far north a Yorkshire or even further in some cases (what did they ever do for us?), producing lots of wine into the bargin. This cannot be done so easily today, unless the above steps are taken via a greenhouse, etc. I even understand that the Vikings grew vines on Greenland. You know, I always wondered when sat in Geography classes as a child, staring at the Mercator projection map why a place coloured white, & apparently covered in many metres thick of ice was called Greenland, I thought it should have been called “BloodyFreezingColdLand”, or something rather similar! Now I know, but don’t tell anybody just in case somebody gets upset!
I am rather dissappointed that the CRU have involved the police & claim the information was stolen, the BBC claiming that as susbsequent legal matters may surface they would restrict comment on them. I am aware that in the Colonies you have laws that prevent evidence being illegally obtained & therefore inadmissible in court if so produced, I dare say we have some draconian law here too that will protect the guilty. Question, how does the moral & ethical ground stand if say, we found out about the full horror & oscenity of the Nazi war-machine as a result of evidence being “stolen” & handed to the allies anonimously, before we found out by seeing it for ourselves, & they were to get off the hook at Nurnberg on a technicallity like inadmissible evidence? Does the crime become any less of a crime as a result? Honestly, “yes we lied our arses off for financial/political/professional gain, but you found out about it illegally!” Shame on you.
John M (20:11:04) :
“Actually, last I checked, globally, 2009 may be within spitten’ distance of a top five. All depends on how much the El Nino impacts Nov and Dec.”
Yes, and I have been noticing a climb in surface and 4.4km temps in the last few days:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
Wondering if we should be expecting this to continue.
– How is SST and Ocean Heat now?
(dunno where to find nice current dumbed-down graphs for these)
– SOI starting to climbing again??
Any views on El Nino expectations?
It might be all over for Jones and his wishful thinking, but we still have Hansen and his prediction of a new El Nino driven record max by 2010.
I will wait for Aust BoM El Nino update in a few days, but would love to hear other views.
They already have a huge negative factor built-in for SO2/sulfate Aerosols.
The last number I have seen would put the impact at -0.6C
They are really saying in this email: – do we have any evidence (from China’s emissions) to bump this negative number down even further. [They know that Europe, North America and Russia’s SO2 numbers are actually down so they have to go to China and India now].
While there is no evidence, and China’s emissions seem to be producing local warming versus cooling, it almost certain that the climate models being run now will be using even larger negative Aerosols numbers right now (because they can not possibly add up if they don’t have bigger negative offsets.)
Creepy (02:43:51) :
I knew something stinks.
According to John Daly/Dr. Landscheidt, the Sun doesn’t lie.
See here, everything ran fine and in harmony… until a big divergence appeared in 1979!
http://img.umweltluege.de/curious1.png
This was the date, the fudging seems to have started.
What I’ve done now (AND THIS IS ONLY MY PRIVATE OPINION!), is to take 1979 as starting point and calculate all data upside down from that date on.
Et voila, here is the harmony again!
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.umweltluege.de%2Fcurious2.png
Isn’t it nice, how it fits to the Sun again?
Nice! So what you’ve demonstrated is that the sun has nothing to do with current warming, since we *should* see cooling, if it’s the sun, but actually we see warming – hence the thawing permafrost, shrinking ice caps, melting glaciers, poleward-shifting climate zones, phenological changes consistent with warming, earlier arrival of spring, later arrival of autumn, increase in drought, increase in extreme precipitation events, increase in tropospheric water vapour content and so on.
Icarus (02:13:42) :
“Scientists are allowed to have ‘gut feelings’. When you see them presented as objective evidence of AGW in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, let us know.”
Like their “conclusions” in the IPCC reports?
How about every time a TV camera is pointed their way?
See this email conversation involving Ian (Harry) Harris, Tim Osborne, and Phil Jones — another great example of “consensus” science:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1009&filename=1252090220.txt
If this isn’t cooking the books, then I don’t know what is. Since when does scientific data have to “look good” and scientists need to “be happy with the version we release”? Just report the facts, that’s all we ask.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1009&filename=1252090220.txt
Also, what the hell is a “IDL thingummajig”? Some magic toaster used to make climate change guano?
@meemoe_uk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p6bn0/Newsnight_23_11_2009/
Dr Fred Singer on Newsnight but NOT on the 10pm BBC news apparently…You sure it was the 10PM news?
The BBC is doing a big thing on Copenhagen. Amongst many pages is a breakdown of “Greenhouse gases”
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn77/aviate1138/Picture8-4.jpg
No mention of water vapour?
It seems you have to dig deep at the BBC to find out cold is bad warm is good
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8375884.stm
Jones is now doing a Capt. Queeg:
Please help him to talk more.
Icarus (02:13:42) :
“Scientists are allowed to have ‘gut feelings’. When you see them presented as objective evidence of AGW in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, let us know.”
Gut feelings, yes — but NO SCIENCE?
Alec Rawls (00:26:20):
…The obvious explanation for the cooling is our quiescent sun, just as with previous episodes of prolonged solar minimum.
What ‘cooling’ would that be? The planet is still warming at around 0.2C per decade –
https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechange/15ytt2008
Perhaps 30- or 15-year trends are just too long to show the ‘cooling’? Let’s try the ten most recent 10-years trends:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2009/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2009/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1999/to:2008/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2007/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2006/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1996/to:2005/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1995/to:2004/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1994/to:2003/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1993/to:2002/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1992/to:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1991/to:2000/trend
Nope, still warming.
Perhaps it might show up in some other data sets? –
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2009/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2009/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2009/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2009/trend
Nope, no cooling there either.
So where is this cooling you speak of?
This is a man who would rather wipe the smug grin of fthe faces of sceptics rather than admit that we won’t be experiencing global warming in the near future.
Lets put this into perspective. Today, statistics in the UK revealed that there was a substantial increase in the number of deaths of ederly people last winter (35,000 more that statistical analysis of previous years would suggest – a 9 year high). A large proportion of these are attributed to cold weather.
The scaremongering of warmists, with its blanket coverage in the media, is frightening people into “cutting their carbon footprint”. Many of those who don’t follow the debate or understand the science are responding by turning down their heating. This is exacerbated by the greedy energy companies who are artifically holding their prices high (a note here to warmists – I am not in the pay of any of the world’s energy providers – I detest the attitude of big oil, big electricity, big gas etc where profit is the main driver and green issues are a PR opportunity).
The consequence is that vulnerable people are dying of cold.
The simple facts is that cold kills, the corollary that warming will save lives. Now if that was Jones’ justification I might feel sympathy, but to him it is a game. I never thought I would say this, but I agree with Monbiot, Jones must go, along wih all those apologies for scientists who are implicated along with him.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=986&filename=1247199598.txt
(1) hot spikes have been corrected.
(2) cold spikes still there.
(3) some odd differences in mean level.
Progress!
Tim
meemoe_uk (02:45:25) :
Was it this:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p6sdy/b00p6scv/The_Daily_Politics_23_11_2009/
Who is responsible for the warming alarmist Google Ads on WUWT? Rather a disgrace, in light of all that’s happening. Someone needs to cancel that ad agreement.
Lee (04:58:38). A BBC Daily Politics Show episode with Fred Singer and Bob Watson in my comment 03:13:35. That’s the first of two Youtube clips.
Re Grapes in London, I am in the skeptic school, but find these things interesting. Poolewe gardens are worth a visit or google on the growing things in unexpected places front.
I grew up in the 60s and 70s about 700ft (200+ metres) up a hillside in central Scotland there were a lot of things we couldn’t grow successfully including tomatoes even in an unheated greenhouse (no irony intended).
Icarus
“So where is this cooling you speak of?”
Right here.
The raw data is from government and university sources, plus the ARGO deep sea buoys.
The woodfortrees site is fun. Anyone can easily manipulate the graphs to show anything they want. By playing with the interactive graphs, they can even show warming over the past decade, when the actual, recorded raw temperature data plainly shows cooling.
In fact, a little more warming is beneficial. And substantially more CO2 is very beneficial. Unless you want more people to die from cold and malnutrition. Do you?
New article in the Age (Australian Newspaper) detailing a new report supposedly being used to bridge the gap between the last IPCC document and Copenhagen.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/warming-diagnosis-beyond-worst-case-20091124-jhco.html
from the article…
“Co-authored by 26 climate scientists, The Copenhagen Diagnosis reports that melting of summer Arctic sea ice, loss of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and projections of the rise in sea levels have accelerated dramatically since 2007.”
…
I’m not entirely sure how they can say that the melting of Arctic summer ice has been accelerating since 2007??!! Maybe it’s a case of ‘it is if you believe it is’???
Sea levels have also shown to have been fairly static since 2006, and Antarctica set a new record in 2009 for lowest summer melt…!
‘The Age’ is Australia’s most respected print news media, which says a lot about how relevant these institutions are becoming. Great reporting there from the Age. NOT!
anyway, you can find the actual report, called the ‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ over at this link…
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/default.html
If you want to experience true believers suppressing skeptical points of view first-hand, try this:
Wikipedia articles that should record this event in a neutral and balanced manner, with journalist-written sources (best to discuss on the talk page, don’t just start editing directly):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
It seems clear that the CRU folks had to (a) cover up the very warm period they referred to as the “1940’s blip”, but by doing so pushed the historic period so far down that when the Earth began cooling off more they had to put the real data back in, since their processed data was too cool.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11466
What a fraud.
I have always been very suspicious of the fact that global warming became a recognized issue right around the time most of the industrialized nations of the world started getting serious about cleaning up their air pollution. I think it quite likely this has given an artificial “bump” to the temperature rise trend that was previously masked by that pollution. Which isn’t to say globl warming isn’t “real”, but it might mean the trend line from the late 70s on has looked artifically much steeper than it would otherwise, so the forward predictions are much steeper than they should be.
>>>Phil Jones tells us that global warming is the great
>>>evil and then in the same breath hopes for a warmer
>>>future, just to stick two fingers up at sceptics. Isn’t
>>>that veering on psychopathy?
No, it is veering on a belief system – a religion.
This is very reminiscent of Jeremiah 44, where the ranting prophet Jeremiah calls upon god to destroy all the remnants of Israel if they do not believe in god instead of the goddess Isis (the Queen of Heaven).
The Israelites told the learned Jeremiah to get stuffed, and that is exactly what the whole world needs to say to Phil Jones.
.
They have no SO2 data? Why not log in at NOAA and download it?
http://satepsanone.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/OMI/OMISO2/index.html
NOAA has been monitoring global SO2 emissions by satellite for several years. Certainly, if China was dumping enough sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to rival volcanoes we would see it?
If the volcanoes can’t put enough SO2 into the atmosphere to catch their attention, China certainly is not, either.
“In every scientific field other than global warming, a scientific hypothesis that generates false predictions is considered disproved.”
So the Warmists have to be wrong how many times before they are considered wrong wrong?
If I as a sceptic (non gullible) claim the temperature next year will be around average plus or minus .5 degrees, I most likely will be correct.
If a few frozen Russian treerings can be used as a proxy, I have an idea. Let’s take trees from Meachum, Oregon and do the same thing. We could correlate the data with the temp sensor right there. As a result, I think we could get a fair approximation of global temps treering correlation, since that was what the treering data proports to be able to do. In short order, we could present a convincing argument, for or against. Given that statement, I am SURE that AGW’ers are all harumphing in the chorus line as to the inappropriateness of this proposed research. Simply on the basis that it isn’t coming from their camp. To put this succinctly Dr. Jones, if a warmer talks cold, it’s okay. If a skeptic talks cold, it’s not. Have I got it right? There is only one way for both camps to stand on the same side of Science. Null hypothesis boy, null hypothesis.
Were I to do this research, my premise would be thus and I would attempt in anyway I could to prove it: #1. There is an unreliable correlation and non-predictive relationship between treering parameters and air temperature. #2. Local temperature data from any one source is not correlated to global averaged temperature data and does not have predictive value.
It is a very sad day when laymen are driven to remind and dare I say teach Ph.D.’s the rudiments of scientific research. Sad, sad day. But since I am a certified teacher, I can hand out grades. You get an F sir.
>>They say the 2007 UK floods, 2003 heatwave
>>in Europe and recent droughts were consistent
>>with emerging patterns.
Are frost-fairs consistent with these emerging patterns too?? Perhaps the ‘patterns’ are actually a kaleidoscope, and they cannot tell the difference…
.
Ok, well going back to the Arctic, and my comment above, I understand that the reporter is probably refering to the projections in AR4 (2007), which would have been written before the 2007 record melt. Of course, the ice has been recovering since then (the melt has not been accelerating), but in terms of the IPCC predictions I can see how this could be a true statement.
So Icarus rises Phoenix like from the ashes of the UEA debacle, but will AGW ever fly as well again?
Nasty toup’ on that dude!
Question of the day: What effect will ClimateGate have on Copenhagen?
Sharpshooter (04:39:43) :
Icarus (02:13:42) :
“Scientists are allowed to have ‘gut feelings’. When you see them presented as objective evidence of AGW in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, let us know.”
Like their “conclusions” in the IPCC reports?
How about every time a TV camera is pointed their way?
The IPCC bases its conclusions on hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals, so the same applies – if you can find that such studies are just based on ‘gut feeling’ rather than objective evidence, let us know.
Stu (05:45:23) :
‘The Age’ is Australia’s most respected print news media, which says a lot about how relevant these institutions are becoming. Great reporting there from the Age. NOT!
This is the best they can come up with.
Hackers ‘show desperate timing’
DEBORAH SMITH SCIENCE EDITOR
Tim Flannery, chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, said the timing of the theft was suspicious. ”It reveals the depth to which climate sceptics will go to influence the course of events.”
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/hackers-show-desperate-timing-20091124-jheu.html
Brian Johnson uk (05:06:11) :
The BBC is doing a big thing on Copenhagen. Amongst many pages is a breakdown of “Greenhouse gases”
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn77/aviate1138/Picture8-4.jpg
No mention of water vapour?
Probably because water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing.
[via responses on Richard Black’s blog]
Climate ‘is a major cause’ of obesity in the UK
By L. Aisey
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
Climate has been cited as a factor behind increasing obesity in the UK
Climate has been a major driver of increasing obesity levels in both children and adults in the UK, research shows – and future warming is likely to increase the number of related deaths.
Researchers found that across the country, the tendency to be overweight was possibly more likely in unusually warm years.
Writing from a shed in Norwich, they suggest warm conditions significant increase in the consumption of sugary, calorific confections known colloquially as “ice-creams”.
Previous research has shown an association between sugary foodstuffs and obesity, but this is thought to be the first possible evidence of a temperature link.
The researchers used figures gained from various sources of average waist-sizes and Body Mass Indexes of citizens, and looked for correlations between above average warmth and how fat people were.
Warm years increased the likelihood of people eating ice-cream.
“Studies show that when it’s warm, the UK’s population like nothing better than relaxing with a nice ’99′”, researchers told BBC News.
If temperatures rise across the country as computer models project, obesity is likely to become more common, researchers suggest.
“We were very surprised to find that when you put things like the easy availability of ice-cream and the choice of products manufactured into the mix, the temperature effect remains strong,” said a researcher.
At next month’s UN climate summit in Copenhagen, governments are due to debate how much fatter they should let become without forcing them to change their ways, possibly by introducing a fat-tax on ice-cream to make people adapt to impacts of climate change.
Researchers’ other findings included that during periods of warmth, people tend to relax more and not burn off as many calories and they do when shivering during colder periods.
“If we don’t stop man-made climate-change now, we will all be a nation of fatties”, they suggest.
[with apologies]
Icarus – and thanks to the UEA release we’re getting to see just how contrived the ‘peer review’ process can be.
Stu – ‘The report cites NASA data’
So we’ve got some nicely cherry-picked Hansen numbers…
Icarus
>The IPCC bases its conclusions on hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals…
I’d like to see just one peer-reviewed study, the one that proves that CO2 is a major driver of global climate, distinguishable from natural variation.
Just that one would do.
I presume it was published around 1988 when Hansen gave his sworn scientific testimony to the US congress that this was happening, and got this whole AGW thing rolling politically. But I could never find the paper that proved it.
Phil Jones obvious desire to experience warmer weather is completely understandable. Frankly if I still lived in UK, I would be praying to what ever god/philosophy which might be listening to turn up the thermostat.
Building climate prediction models on computers, with dozens of unknowable variables might be engrossing and lucrative but its no more than a guess.
” David (08:03:51) : ”
“If we don’t stop man-made climate-change now, we will all be a nation of fatties”, they suggest. ”
There’ll be icecreams in the apocalypse!?
“At the end of 2008, the scientists at East Anglia predicted that 2009 would be one of the warmest years on record:”
And it won’t be? Looking at HadCRU, “Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4∞C above the 1961-1990 average” looks about right so far. Whether it’s going to be top five or top ten, I don’t know. Taking a glance at GISS, 2009 might just sneak into the top 5, for whatever that’s worth.
I don’t know why they make predictions for the next year; seems a bit silly. But so far as it goes, a prediction of an anomaly of 0.4 C looks OK so far.
Stu (08:15:22): Yes, but they’ll be taxed so highly that we won’t be able to afford them 🙁
Seems pretty bad form to take someone’s post, reproduce it in full here, and not even link to the original site.
Not shocking about Phil Jones et al, though. Thankfully they’re being exposed at this important time, with the crazies pushing for cap & trade soon.
REPLY: You are correct, and I’m just as shocked as you that somehow linkbacks were missed. That’s been corrected in tow places now. Thank you for pointing it out. – Anthony
From Webster
Main Entry: anom·a·ly
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈnä-mə-lē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anom·a·lies
Date: 1603
1 : the angular distance of a planet from its perihelion as seen from the sun
2 : deviation from the common rule : irregularity
3 : something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified
Anomalous global temps are not easily classified. To say that the trend is caused by one thing or another disregards the definition of the term “anomaly”. Since the current trend was not predicted by the models, we can truly say that we are seeing anomalous temperatures. And mean what we say. Sorry warmers, but you can’t prove something by hijacking a definition and changing its meaning.
Pamela Gray (08:46:35) :
Was any of that directed at me? I don’t know why. Anomaly, as defined in this context (for HadCru), is the difference in temperature from the period 1961-1990. According to the post above, somebody at the Met Office or UEA said that for 2009, this would be around +0.4 C, global average. Precisely what they based this on, I don’t know, but there it is.
Well, looking at the HadCru data for 2009, (again, global mean), this doesn’t seem so bad so far. We’ll see at year’s end.
re P Wilson (20:02:09)
“Phil Jones tells us that global warming is the great evil and then in the same breath hopes for a warmer future, just to stick two fingers up at sceptics.”
This is of course in line with Prof Jones other e-mail:
From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.”
Henry chance (06:46:44) :
“In every scientific field other than global warming, a scientific hypothesis that generates false predictions is considered disproved.”
So the Warmists have to be wrong how many times before they are considered wrong wrong?
Hansen’s 1988 projections:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
Not wrong 20 years later:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
Creepy (02:43:51) ” http://img.umweltluege.de/curious2.png “
Heads up nonalarmists: I suspect “Creepy” is an alarmist posing as a “nutjob denier”.
Norfolk is a curious place.
I used to live here 52°45’36.73″N 1°20’45.05″E give or take a few metres & work here 52º45’34.5″N 1º21’19.51″E.
R.A.F. Coltishall regularly recorded both hottest & coldest U.K. Temperatures at different times of the year.
Actually had what was probably my scariest moment on the roof of that second location, watching a Folland Gnat of the Red Arrows climbing off the airfield after having pulled out of a loop. People who flew the Gnat said ‘You don’t so much get in it as put it on!’ I can tell you it’s bloody big when it’s coming straight at you at 400Kts.
DaveE.
One thing sticks out in my mind. Apparently, Paul Hudson of the BBC had been forwarded these emails on the 12th October. HADcrut’s September anomaly was released over two weeks late i think, around 7th/8th November when normally it should have been expected 20Th October? Why is that? Did they know earlier that this zip file was already gone then and they used the two weeks before the Sept anomalies were released to ‘do housekeeping duties’ knowing that this was going to break?
It only occured to me when i saw the paul Hudson piece earlier…..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml
Only an observation, i’m not bright enough to work out any meaning (if any) in that!!!
Why not release CO2 in the winter months and release SO2 in the summer months to keep the temp at a comfortable 75°F…? That will work for me.
“Maybe they’ll just blame it on China and SO2 emissions. “
Just how much SO2 could China be emitting?!
Did you know that the volcano “Nyiragongo is producing more [SO2] than any place in the world, up to 50,000 tons per day. That’s more than the amount produced by all power plants, factories and cars in the United States.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3215_volcanoc.html
And that is just one of the estimated 50-60 active volcanoes in the world.
The Carbonic Knight has a corpus?
BernieL (03:52:56) :
I don’t know where to find daily SST data like the UAH site for the lower troposphere, but for a mapped view worldwide, this is interesting.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anomaly.html
No numbers though, other than the scale.
Like the line in Airplane went, “It’s running a little hot”.
This summary is interesting to read every Monday.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Looks like right now, El Nino conditions are moderate to strong, but steady. It is my impression (just from following this for a while) that their long range El Nino projections are about as useful as long range weather or hurricane forecasts (i.e. not very, or as Colonel Potter said, “about as useful as a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest”).
Nice example of the BBC’s ‘impartiality’ here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377465.stm
Guess how many fingers you need to count the number of climate science sceptics who are quoted by Mr Harrabin?
Well why bother to quote actual climate scientist sceptics when: “But in the world of science policy, many others find themselves in a war of influence against those firms who fund the amplification of the messages of the relatively small number of genuinely sceptical scientists outside the consensus. The sceptic business lobby aims to keep scientific doubt alive to paralyse policy. This is the world of science Realpolitik. ”
Much easier to smear and generalise than to quote what they actually.
And this is a nice one: “Over two decades I’ve spoken to mainstream scientists who are sick of hearing their work attacked and their motives questioned.”
Just leave out the word “mainstream” Mr Harrabin and you might have a point.
carrot eater (08:16:05) :
As I said very early in the comments on this thread, I would tend to agree with you.
I’ve been following MET predictions over at the Climate Audit Message Board (different than the main site, but just as slow these days).
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
As you say, there’s a good chance it might actually make it into the top five this year and the MET may actually be right for once. But they’ve overestimated the annual anomaly about 70-80% of the time since 1998. Even with their generous face-saving uncertainty (+/-0.15 if I recall), the fact that they’ve been consistently high in their predictions is worth noting.
With an uncertainty of +/-0.15, as you say, why bother.
And even the boys at GISS couldn’t help jerking their chain a bit a couple of years ago when UKMet predicted 2007 would have record warmth. I couldn’t find the comment though.
But even the GISS squad think we’re “likely” to set a record either in 2009 (too late) or 2010.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
icarus
Where is the cooling?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2010/trend
[-0.009/year least square trend from 2001 to the present]
My word, the arrogance of assuming we can “geo-engineer” when we can’t even model. Engineers would be mortified with the shoddy science these chumps disseminate
Icarus (10:44:56) :
Interesting what a difference a year makes.
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1793/hansen2008qa4.jpg
John M (14:15:31) :
Icarus (10:44:56) :
Hansen’s 1988 projections:
Not wrong 20 years later
Interesting what a difference a year makes.
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1793/hansen2008qa4.jpg
You’re surely not suggesting that one year’s 0.2°C deviation from a 0.2°C-per-decade warming trend is statistically significant?
global temperatures are quite irrelevant for many reasons outlined before: localities count, not global averages. I’m not sure it can be all massed down to a single figure to eliminate regional cooling and warming trends. Supposing earth were colder at the poles and warmer at the equator? (Thats how protracted cooling periods begin).
Past proxies are too unsafe to be used as thermometers, since they collectively produce a spaghetti graph .. and that only gives us a biased instrumental record until the advent of satellite readings.. the latter which show the stratosphere isn’t cooling as expected with radiation being trapped by c02.
So that leaves the climatological community hedging their bets on 2009 to verify their entire thesis, which is limited in time.
I notice reading through the disclosed emails that there is extremely little interest in ENSO, PDO, and oceans generally.
The good news is that if you advocate c02 causing catastrophic global warming, the peer process is suddenly opening up to everyone. If you don’t then google earth is still interesting to see what buildings in NYC and beyond look like
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6924113.ece
John M (13:53:02) :
Since the their model can be used for both climate and weather (used differently, but same basic model), I suppose they play with that to give them the confidence to make such projections. Or perhaps a bit of intuition based on the ENSO cycle, which can be sort of predicted a few months in advance. Either which way, they’re on form to be more or less correct this time (I’ll take your word they’re usually wrong in this exercise), so I don’t understand why the post says “We know now that the alarmists’ prediction for 2009 didn’t come true.”, with a link to US data.
Icarus
Probably because water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing.
So you are just a troll!
The young CBC meteorologist provided two great examples of how moonie are the alarmists.
Yesterday she said that “we’re working hard to prove that all the catastrophic weather events – snow in China and floods in England” are caused by Global Warming.”
Obviously she and her colleagues don’t want to knwo the truth – they want the truth to agree with their theory.
Today she said that “new models prove that the effect of Global Warming will be much worse than estimated in the 2007 models which were not very good.”
Nothwithstanding that the actual IPPC reports didn’t forecast anything, why were they drawing conclusions based upon models that they say were nto very good?
Icarus (14:35:32) :
You’re surely not suggesting that one year’s 0.2°C deviation from a 0.2°C-per-decade warming trend is statistically significant?
Well, I seem to recall a lot of hoo-ha back in 1998…
But anyway, the main point is that the projected “Scenario B” is about to start accelerating and we’re still hard-pressed to even set new records with the actual temperature data. Trundling along “in the top ten warmest years ever” isn’t going to get us back to Scenario B.
Scenario B is looking worse and worse, which is kind of evident from the fact that you linked to an old analysis and graph to make your point.
matt v. (13:57:06) :
icarus
Where is the cooling?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2010/trend
[-0.009/year least square trend from 2001 to the present]
OK, you found a tiny tiny cooling trend in one data set by carefully selecting the years to plot. Well done. I just found a massive warming trend of 1°C per decade –
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:20/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:20/trend
Good bit of cherry-picking, eh?
This is why climate scientists use 30 years’ worth of data to identify long-term trends, not a couple of years or ten years. Think about it: The world has been warming at about 0.2°C per decade for the last 40 years or so –
https://sites.google.com/site/europa62/climatechange/yvtayto200
Interannual variability is commonly 0.2 – 0.3°C. Anyone can see that you therefore need *at the very least* 15 years of data to distinguish that warming trend of 0.2°C per decade from the annual ‘noise’ of natural fluctuations –
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:180/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:180/trend
… and preferably 30 years –
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/trend
Agreed?
Icarus (15:21:31)
I hope this doesn’t mean that we’re going back to the cataclysmic global warming year of 1998 when coastal cities were under 30 metres of water.
30 years is not a trend. 100 years is a bare minimum, 2000 years a medium term, 10.000 years a fair long term. The latter two take us through highs and lows of a climate, and shows that nothing today stands outside of natural variability. The40’s-70’s were a cooling period until 1976 when the Pacific climatic shift took place, so 30 years of data removes it from any sort of context. It certainly isn’t a long term.
take Loehle’s reconstruction that doesn’t use tree ring data 2007 from E&E, later corrected for errors in 2008 in E&E
However, the subject is being made a nonsense of by proxy wars. If all the proxies are added together we get a mash. Intruth though, we don’t know TRULY if 1998 was TRULY warmer than 1900 or 1850
Patrick Davis (21:04:48) :
That’s really interesting however, all other MSM outlest I have viewed so far report recent weeks here in the south and east of Australia as being the hottest ever, record breaking events.
Perhaps that is because the thermometer placement has changed to only measure the warmer places. From:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/ghcn-pacific-islands-sinking-from-the-top-down/
under the Australia entries for “by altitude” thermometer change, (thermometer percent in GHCN by decade, in meters):
Year -MSL 20 50 100 200 300 400 500 1000 2000 Space DAltPct: 1849 0.0100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 1859 16.7 38.9 0.0 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 1869 20.2 31.0 25.0 11.9 0.0 8.3 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 1879 14.0 19.3 21.6 12.3 18.7 6.4 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 1889 19.2 13.2 28.2 11.4 11.9 5.7 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 1899 20.0 13.1 24.7 12.9 10.2 8.8 1.4 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 1909 21.2 9.7 16.5 17.7 9.7 12.0 4.3 8.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 1919 18.3 8.0 11.0 20.4 13.1 11.8 4.4 10.8 2.2 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 1929 17.3 8.1 10.7 22.0 13.2 11.8 4.2 10.3 2.3 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 1939 16.3 7.8 10.9 23.2 13.8 12.0 4.1 9.8 2.2 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 1949 18.2 8.6 11.0 22.2 13.6 11.1 3.8 9.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 1959 21.2 9.6 10.7 20.0 12.0 11.3 4.5 9.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 1969 24.1 11.7 11.3 17.3 12.0 9.2 4.0 9.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 1979 22.9 11.2 11.0 17.6 12.6 10.1 4.3 8.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 1989 24.4 10.9 11.3 16.4 12.6 10.2 4.3 8.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 1999 26.3 11.5 11.5 15.4 11.8 9.7 4.1 8.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 DAltPct: 2009 35.4 14.5 12.8 14.7 5.1 7.6 2.3 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 For COUNTRY CODE: 501Not that you folks down under had much altitude to spare to begin with, but now more than 1/3 of the readings are “on the beach” in altitude… Everything over 100 m is just melting in the rain and headed for the beach… And the old reports from elevation are kept in for the “GIStemp baseline” period, so GIStemp will be comparing mountain baseline records to beaches today.)
Or perhaps the deletion from GHCN of massive numbers of Australian thermometers?
From:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/ghcn-pacific-basin-lies-statistics-and-australia/
In http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/gistemp-aussy-fair-go-and-far-gone/
we saw that in 1992-93 there were 401 thermometers deleted. […]
When I went looking at “continent code” 5, that includes Australia, Micronesia, Polynesia, Indonesia, all the “esias”… I found a curious thing. The whole group together had a very similar “bias” figure. In fact, the thermometer deletions looked suspiciously familar:
or the migration of thermometer locations toward the north (covered in the quoted “fair go” link…)
The bottom line is that unless you know EXACTLY what “temperature series” are being used to make these pronouncements of “record heat” and exactly what “adjustments” have been made to them: The claims of warmth can be and most likely are completely bogus.
Just like the GISS claim that we in the Western USA had a 115 Year Record Heat!!!!!! which lead me do an experiment of putting back IN the thermometers they had deleted from California (which deletion had left ours “On The L.A. Beach”)… which seems to have lead NASA (kicking and screaming…) to put back in the USHCN.v2 thermometers.
I’m still waiting, BTW, for:
1) A retraction of that 115 Year Record Heat Anomaly claim.
2) A “thank you” from NASA for my code showing it was trivial to put the USHCN Version 2 data into GIStemp.
3) An admission that “it mattered” beyond just putting it back…
So my suggestion to you would be to find out what data series they are using, then look at thermometer change in that series (if it isn’t GHCN, but instead is some Australian variation) both by altitude and by latitude.
You have, by my count, 401 deleted thermometers to find… Start looking in the South and in The Mountains…
Icarus (10:44:56) :
Henry chance (06:46:44) :
“In every scientific field other than global warming, a scientific hypothesis that generates false predictions is considered disproved.”
So the Warmists have to be wrong how many times before they are considered wrong wrong?
Hansen’s 1988 projections:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
Not wrong 20 years later:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
************************************************
Stop drinking the koolaid. That global temps might have risen two or three tenths in 20 years (at Scenario C in 2010) doesn’t make Hansen 1988 right about anything.
Has (Scenario C) “greenhouse climate forcing” ceased to increase after 2000?
In the mean time the AMSR-E sea ice Arctic is back at 2003/4 levels, despite it being unseasonably warm up there?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
WUWT?
Icarus (05:15:34) : So where is this cooling you speak of?
In the real world.
The data series that you are depending on for your pretty (fictional) graphs are all, in the end, dependent on GHCN. And GHCN has been throughly “cooked” by thermometer deletions. The effect of which is to move the thermometers to the beach and out of the mountains, and from the poles toward the equators.
You can start learning about his here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
but the “by altitude” study is still ‘in progress’ so those articles will be in the sidebar article list on the right.
ANY data series using HadCRUt, GIStemp, or GHCN is broken. Seriously damaged by capricious thermometer change that has placed the surviving thermometers over airport tarmac on the beach… and increasing at tropical airports near tropical beaches.
FWIW, California is now represented in GHCN by 1 thermometer at the San Francisco Airport and by 3 more in the Southern LA Basin area near or on the beach. Not a one reports the glaciers of Mount Shasta, the snows of the Sierra Nevada, the desert cold nights… (NASA was apparently embarrassed into putting the rest of the California thermometers back in GIStemp after I showed how to do it in about a dozen lines of code… and was preparing a ‘before and after’ benchmark to shove up th.,. er, “show them”… GHCN will take a bit longer, but “I’m working on it now”…)
So please realize you are using a “rubber ruler” to measure temperatures.
And yes, I will remind you of this every time you use said broken rubber ruler.
Now just go to the window and look outside. It works Much Better.
Also, FWIW, I’ve adopted the Tomato as icon for truth in temperatures, since “GIStemp is dumber than a Tomato” – my tomatoes do a much more accurate job of reporting the temperature:
At: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
you can see the tomato picture I’ve selected…
FWIW, I’m giving GHCN / GIStemp a week or two to start “fixing it” for the ROW. If they don’t, then I’m going to produce “SmithTemp” with a more stabilized set of thermometers and start publishing competitive temperature maps with their own software showing just exactly now broken they are because of thermometer deletions…
(It won’t be hard. Just take the surviving locations and use only their data and some small amount of non-new-but-nearby if needed to make up for a lack of past coverage. I.e use the present “Sydney” thermometer, but if it ends in 1980 going back in time, pick up the “other Sydney” from that point further back in time. But if there is no “Melbourn” at present, then all prior Melbourn is deleted. Stabilizing the instrument.)
You might want to enquire of WoodForTrees just where their data come from and what they are doing to get a copy of the real temperatures based on a stable set of thermometers..
meemoe_uk (02:23:49) : The estasblishment are itching for a way to clamp dowen on the internet. The Rockefellers ( Richest dynasty in the US ) state that the internet is the greatest terrorism threat in the world.
An infomation war over climategate is set to begin. The establishment will be pushing a new cyber terrorism threat, legislation, and internet freedom crackdown.
The internet was designed by DARPA (Sorry Al…) to survive nuclear war.
ANYONE can set up a unix / linux / router and have it talk to a ‘neighbor’. Even over plain old phone lines or via 802.11 wireless. ( Or light beam or any information conduit.) Heck, I’ve even made a 5 port router out of a Windows PC. (Don’t ask…)
Further, a VPN (Virtual Private Network) can be set up inside the public network and substantially opaque to it. (I can even make it nearly undetectable, if a bit slow… and I can certainly make it uncrackable.)
So any attempt to “squash” the internet will just result in a few million Linux / Unix geeks like me setting up the BorgNet… It isn’t hard, and it can not be stopped. Ask DARPA, they made sure of it…
As a simple example, take two Wireless Capable laptops and define a VPN between them over their shared wireless space. You now have an “Intranet”. Allow routing and forwarding. Have one of them make a wireless or wired phone call to someone’s home network. Put a VPN through it to another friend at home on their desktop machine. You are now making an “Extranet” tunneled through the internet… and you can share among your selves privately, while still seeing the internet…
If you use the 10.x.x.x IP range for your private network you can have up to 253 x 253 x 253 folks on your network before you need to use NAT to glue on another group… All this is done via encrypted VPN tunnels.
There is a great deal more that can be done to hide, encrypt, and protect traffic and identities. But it is not appropriate to this blog or thread. (One of my favorite is a transparent cryptographic file system. It only exists when a “quorum” meets on the extranet and can only form with sufficient passwords supplied. The “data” do not exist in any given “place” and you may compromise all the passwords you want as long as it is less than a quorum and you will never see the data… and if you capture a disk, you still net nothing useful, as it is only a part of the cryptext… A “forensic guy’s” nightmare, but “way cool”. A bit slow, though. Need to work on speed…).
FWIW, NONE of the examples I gave is hypothetical. The file system is from a University in Italy (gee wonder who funded it ;-). “In the early days” I ran a major computer makers site. Our first “Internet connection” was via a 9600 baud dial-up to a ‘friendly neighbor’. The next one after that was a leased line to another “friendly neighbor”. NO “internet service provider” needed… I’ve also set up VPNs connecting intranets and extranets for many many companies. It is a common business technique. You can’t stop it without breaking corporate business today.
In the hills behind where I live, there is a fellow “too far away” to get a leased line. But he has “line of sight” to a friend “down slope” about a mile away. Some 802.11 gear, a couple of tin cans, and some wire… He is now connected at 10 Mb / sec to the “internet” via an intranet. Another group could not get service from their Telco above Sacramento. They set up a pool of such “WiFi ” gear with one guy who bought a leased line to the world. Now a major chunk of those hills have said “stuff it” to said telco as they decided maybe they should provide service…
So. The Point.
You can make the internet a bit more expensive. And you can make it a bit more annoying. And you can make more folks learn some really cool techniques to building their own (that any high school kid can master). BUT you can NOT shut down the internet.
If it happened tonight, I would be networked with a couple of friends within hours (and most of that would be waiting for us both to be home at the same time…). So, “no worries”, OK?
(Besides, how do you know there isn’t already such a pool of “hackers and cranks” already running this way 😉
Icarus (07:43:56) :
Brian Johnson uk (05:06:11) : No mention of water vapour?
Probably because water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing.
What a hoot! Loved that droll sarcasm! You need to remember the smily face, though, or some folks might think you were serious! 😉
“Any views on El Nino expectations?
It might be all over for Jones and his wishful thinking, but we still have Hansen and his prediction of a new El Nino driven record max by 2010.
I will wait for Aust BoM El Nino update in a few days, but would love to hear other views.”
It doesn’t make sense that a new record will occur in 2010, during -PDO cycles El Nino events are kept in check usually. Looking at the recent TAO/Triton of SST anomalies going underwater; There is quite a very anomalously warm ploom making it’s way upward and the East upwelling. Fortunately, we always see these waxing and waining periods in undersurface water SST anomaly patterns. Now in it’s current form without much mixing or cooling, It’s possible to see an event like 1997-98. Of course this may change if +SOI values start streaking on a consistent basis, and do there work on trade winds. On the other hand, if we see another crazy Kelvin wave head enhanced by the IOD suddenly knocking on the doorsteps of Enso Region 4, like we did this Late Oct/Early Nov, maybe ole Hanson will have his day. That being said, If the strongest Enso event does occur in 2010, and temp anomalies upstairs or downstairs and Tropical forcing are not nearly on the highside as 97-98 was, then it will not make any difference. Lots of variables in play, I would give it 65/35 Hanson’s Prediction of Record +ENSO event loses, based on known trends in the North Pacific, Negative GLAAM/Tendency & GWO trends.
carrot eater (08:16:05) :
“At the end of 2008, the scientists at East Anglia predicted that 2009 would be one of the warmest years on record:”
And it won’t be? Looking at HadCRU,
Pardon me? After all that has been shown about them you would actually cite them as an authority on anything? You must be kidding…
Taking a glance at GISS, 2009 might just sneak into the top 5, for whatever that’s worth.
OMG, and you think GISS is usable too?! Perhaps you didn’t know that they just had to put about 1100 thermometers “back in” for the USA alone?
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/giss-watch-wonder-what-is-happening/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/ushcn-v2-gistemp-ghcn-what-will-it-take-to-fix-it/
But they still need to do some little things, like put the mountains back in South America and Canada:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/ghcn-oh-canada-rockies-we-dont-need-no-rockies/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/ghcn-south-america-andes-what-andes/
So just as soon as you are using a temperature series that does NOT depend on GHCN, your anomalies might be worth something. Until then, you are measuring thermometer change.
Oh, and “anomalies” don’t save you from this. I’ve run GIStemp on the “before and after” and the “Anomalies Change”. You can get even greater changes from moving the baseline start. Nice changes even come from changing which version of the same data you pick up from NOAA.
Anomalies don’t tell you much about the planet, but they tell you a great deal about the changes in your thermometer locations and record handling.
And yes, I have the data to back that up.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/gistemp-witness-this-fully-armed-and-operational-anomaly-station/
So “I think we’re gonna need some new thermometer guys” …
(With apologies to Die Hard and the FBI…)
Icarus (10:44:56) :
That’s less than 19 years, please check your math. Hansen inadvertently create a wonderful cherry picking opportunity with the 20 year period between visits to Congress, see UAH and RSS data at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/02/what-a-difference-20-years-makes/
Also, from a comment of mine at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3561012/Nasa-is-out-of-line-on-global-warming.html
There is an interesting and inconvenient fact about James Hansen’s June 1988 testimony to the US Congress raising the alarm about global warming and his return 20 years later. His global temperature estimate for June 1988 was 0.39C above average. In June 2008 it had dropped to 0.26C. Oops. His 1880 to last month data is at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
perhaps this is off topic but….
I found this little interesting exchange hidden away in Norfolk.
From: Jone xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
To: Hanson
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
CC: Mann
xxxxx
xxxxx
Hi guys,
As you may be aware the University of East Anglia Hockey team qualified for the finals of the International Postgraduate Commonwealth Competiition to be held in Copenhagen in December. You may recall that we drew 1 – 1 with the Irish Team in extra time. There was some skeptical reporting in the aftermath saying that our team Captain Theirre Monyboot handled the ball before our Captain Pierre Hardcrut scored the equalizer. I do not recall the incident. The upshot however is that our Captain has been banned, and the rat Montboot has defected and will now play for our next opposition in the final, namely the Unversity of Toronto.
Our problems do not end there, as our pavillion was burgled and our Entire Kit was Wrecked. We have spare kit, but the vandals even broke all our hockey sticks.
So what i am begging for is a new set of hockey sticks. The last ones you so kindly sent me Mike were fine, but I was wondering if perhaps some sourced from Maple or Giant Sequoia might prove more resilliant. Some of my Peers have suggested that the latter variety might pass the test in the finals.
thanks in anticipation
Chris
Expose the code and bust the Anti-Trust Climate Team
Busted not Robust!
Shiny
Edward
E.M.Smith (20:54:16) :
Icarus (07:43:56) :
> “Brian Johnson uk (05:06:11) : No mention of water vapour?
>
> Probably because water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing.
What a hoot! Loved that droll sarcasm! You need to remember the smily face, though, or some folks might think you were serious! 😉
Is there a point to this? If so, let’s hear it.
Stephen Wilde, above:
“All the proxies probably smooth out the true range of variability.”
Intuitively I grasp this concept but I’d be interested in why this might be so. Is it because of other mitigating local climatic or soil factors, or what?