WUWT readers may recall that Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog discovery of UNEP’s use of a Wikipedia “hockey Stick” graphic by “Hanno”, was the subject of last week’s blog postings.
The Yamal data hockey stick controversy overshadowed it, and much of the focus has been there recently.
The discovery of a Wikipedia graphic in the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium must have been embarrassing as it shows the sort of sloppy science that is going into “official” publications.
In this case, the United Nations simply grabbed an image from Wikipedia that supported the view they wanted to sell. The problem with the graph in the upper right of page 5 of the UNEP report is that it itself has not been peer reviewed nor has it originated from a peer reviewed publication, having its inception at Wikipedia.
And then there’s the problem of the citation as “Hanno 2009” who (up until this story broke) was an anonymous Wikipedia contributor.
Yet UNEP cited the graph as if it was a published and peer reviewed work as “Hanno 2009″.
Here’s my screencap of the page from the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium report from last week
In this case, the United Nations simply grabbed an image from Wikipedia that supported the view they wanted to sell.
The hockey stick, based on tree ring proxies has met an inconveniently timed death it seems.
It appears now that somebody at the United Nations must have gotten the message from blogland, becuase there has been a change in the graphics on page 5.
Below is page 5 as it appears in the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium today:
It’s gone. It has been replaced with the familiar GISS land-ocean record, not quite a hockey stick, but close enough.
You can see the GISS graph from the GISTEMP web page right here, oddly the UN used the 2005 version (citing Hansen et al 2005) rather than the 2009 version of the graph, seen below. Might it be that pesky downturn at the end of the graph? Or maybe they are just Google challenged?
It sure would be nice if such publications could display animated GIFS, for example this one showing two different vintages of GISS data:
Maybe climate blogs can convince the UN to change their graph yet again.
Thanks to sharp eyed WUWT reader Lawrie (of Sydney Australia) for pointing out the change made to the UNEP document.
Sponsored IT training links:
Testking offers up to date LX0-102 exam dumps and HP0-J27 practice test with 100% success guarantee for HP0-S25 exams.
“It sure would be nice if such publications could display animated GIFS, for example this one showing two different vintages of GISS data”
That would be Harry Potter material, for dead-tree journals!
I think that the Interbebby thingy has surpassed even Harry……
For comparison with the new UN graph:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/aa_yoy_diff_sq.png
The real fun will start, when McIntyre digs into raw data of modern HadCRUT dataset. Should not be raw data for GISTEM and HadCRUT + methodology available just as tree ring proxies?
This is a shame.
The hockey stick, already an established cultural icon, is now entering folklore:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/warming_tanked/#commentsmore
But why stop at 1000 years?
There’s plenty more tidying up for ‘the team’ to get on with:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_images/newspost_images/dnc49xz_66cjkz54fh_b.png
It’s silently gone. Those who were able to separate justified results from nonsense aren’t credited with their contributions. But thank God, at least one wrong graph is gone.
Thousands of them are still waiting. And when thousands of wrong graphs are also removed, it will still not be the end of the movement because the movement is not really about any graphs, neither correct nor fake ones.
Very typical. IPCC represents THE scientific concensus – except for the intrumental temperature graph. IPCC uses CRU, but most AGW-faithful (including Gore) prefer GISS, showing 2005 as the warmest year instead of 1998. And yes, the graph always stops at the peak, ignoring the politically incorrect downturn.
As always, this website always brightens the start of my day.
The IPCC and Gore should give back their peace prize.
oakwood (00:00:33) : As always, this website always brightens the start of my day.
hear hear!
Why don’t they show a graph of the last 1000 years? It would be really interesting to know what their view of the last millenium really is. And why don’t they show a graph of the last 250 years? Why not the last 5000 years? Or 20,000 years?
Obviously it is very important for them to select a convenient start date for their graphs.
Their case is extremely precarious just on that point alone.
Imagine how much would pass under the bridge if it wasn’t for the efforts of the likes of a certain A Watts and S McIntyre. Alarmists down-under frequently posit that a nobel prize awaits those who disprove the current consensus. By my reckoning both you guys are winners, several time over. KUTGW!
How refreshing! A little UN honesty, there is a long way to go, say to providing total objectivity and the conflicting evidence side by side in the their ‘compendiums’/ propaganda sheets.
oakwood (00:00:33) : “As always, this website always brightens the start of my day.”
I also start the day with WUWT, but, unlike you, I always get depressed with the realisation that its impact on AGW proponents and, in particular, politicians is absolutely zilch.
The timeline in the first two graphs is different. The first spans a 1,010 years and the other just 130 years.
The “Hanno” graph clearly shows that, except for the past 50 to 100 years, the temperatures are more or less stable. This is clearly in line with the IPCC message that CO2 has upset things and things are not “normal” today.
When we look at the 10,000 year history of temperatures, reconstructed from the very reliable GISP2 ice core data however, the current warm period seems very normal, though a little cooler than, most of the past 10,000 years.
Maybe you should post this graph also to put todays temperatures in context. (preferably if you can get a larger version of it)
“It’s gone. It has been replaced with the familiar GISS land-ocean record, not quite a hickey stick, but close enough.”
I’m not really familiar with a “hickey stick”
The original Hanno graph was not peer reviewed. Can it be claimed that the GISS graph has been peer reviewed? It seems to me that both the GISS and HADCRU graphs have not gone through an independent review process of any kind. Has anybody done any replication of the graphs (I know the CRU data is top secret, or was before it was lost)?
“Chris Schoneveld (01:49:09) :
oakwood (00:00:33) : “As always, this website always brightens the start of my day.”
I also start the day with WUWT, but, unlike you, I always get depressed with the realisation that its impact on AGW proponents and, in particular, politicians is absolutely zilch.”
My centiments exactly. And I don’t see “voter power” working to correct this situation, only civil unrest.
Re: Richard (01:50:30) :
“When we look at the 10,000 year history of temperatures, reconstructed from the very reliable GISP2 ice core data however, the current warm period seems very normal, though a little cooler than, most of the past 10,000 years.”
At that station, maybe. How can this graph represent global temperature?
“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. He can go about his business. Move along.”
I echo MarcH. What people like McIntyre and Watts do is to inform people of the downright lies that are going on. I emailed D’Aleo at Icecap the other day to keep up the good work. Imagine what realclimate would get away with if it weren’t for these good people! I’ve managed to educate some people myself on what realclimate actually is and who is backing it.
They also altered the graph in the lower left, removing the Wikipedia credit to Rhode 2009.
http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/screenhunter3qk7.gif is 404
At least it’s something although I suspect it is merely more slight of hand to avoid embarrassing claims against their report. Have they apologised for the apparent “error”, have they even acknowledged it, I think not.
As to consensus, slightly OT but related to the alleged “scientific consensus” & how 2,500 scientists cannot be wrong. I was putting somebody right a little while ago, & I pointed out that apart from some musings from ancient Greece, until the 16th C with Copernicus, & the 17th C with Galileo, the general scientific consensus of the IPCC equivalent world leading scientific authority (the Holy Roman Catholic Church), was that the Earth was flat & that the sun, stars & planets revolved around us. We now know this to be untrue. Up until the late 18th C & early to mid 19th C, the general scientific & medical consensus, was that blood letting was the order of the day in curing all manner of ailments, & that this blood letting ranged from applying leeches to various parts of the body, to cutting across main arteries, resulting in frequent deaths! We now know this to be untrue. Towards the end of the 19th C, Lord Kelvin (Britian’s leading scientist) pronounced that there was nothing left to discover in science any more, only greater & more accurate measurement. We now know this to be untrue. For almost 350 years, science was dominated by Newtonian physics, until a young smart alec German upstart scientist called Bert Onestone, announced his theory of relativity to great outcry & synicism & disbelief from the scientific consensus, turning Newtonian physics on its head & inside out. It was claimed he was wrong, we now know this theory to be true – probably! In the early 20th C, Alfred Wegener announced his theory of continental drift, evetually leading to plate tectonic theory later that century, he was ridiculed & insulted for his “ridculous” & “fanciful” opinions by the scientific consensus, & his theory dismissed. We now know this to be true! I think he got the point I was making about “scientific consensus” & its uttter meaningless relevance!
It’s gone. It has been replaced with the familiar GISS land-ocean record, not quite a hickey stick, but close enough.
A hickey stick? 🙂 I’m getting a 404 http error for the blink graph.
I worked for the UN for about 16 months as a translator. Their pay was good (it amounted to about 10 times the average rate in my industry), and it was exempt from taxation!
Nevertheless, I quit in disgust. The language they use in the UN is inhumanly perverse; it’s not even “bureaucratic” — it’s something indescribable. And the people you have to work with… “corrupt” and “illiterate” don’t cut it. “Reptile scum of the Earth” would do better.
To expect any kind of factual truth to come out from the United Nations is as naive as reading some uncharted depths of integrity and nobility in Putin’s eyes. They understand only two things, money and power. What do they care about science that doesn’t pay under the table?
Chris Schoneveld 01:49:09:
“I also start the day with WUWT, but, unlike you, I always get depressed with the realisation that its impact….is absolutely zilch.”
Patience, Chris, it’s coming, it’s coming.
The UN’s IPCC process was hijacked right at the beginning by political activists, some of whom happened to be climate scientists. Since then the science (genuine and invented by anonymous wiki contributors) is mere decoration to a sociopolitical agenda.
Recession good news for polar bears, says IEA
The recession is ‘a window of opportunity to curb climate change and build a low-carbon future’, says the International Energy Agency (IEA).
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/44207/178/
The future is bright with equality….we will ALL be miserable!
Thomas J. Arnold. (01:28:34) :
How refreshing! A little UN honesty, there is a long way to go, say to providing total objectivity and the conflicting evidence side by side in the their ‘compendiums’/ propaganda sheets.
—————————————-
Honest as in “yes, I had my hand in the cookie jar – but see! I’m honest about it!”
Wikipedia is, by its very nature, a ‘less than honest’ source of information – put up 2+2=4 and you’d get various edits and discussions about such ‘opinions’.
But it does make one wonder who is actually compiling, editing and checking these documents. More effort was put into creating the logo on the front cover than the actual content.
In “The Times” today and online at;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6862384.ece
“Explorer’s logbooks prove a welcome bounty for climate change doubters”
Read and enjoy.
Thank the UN for a lesson in Latin…
A corrigendium for the compendium.
(Did I spell that right?)
RR Kampen (03:35:24) :
Re: Richard (01:50:30) : “When we look at the 10,000 year history of temperatures, reconstructed from the very reliable GISP2 ice core data however, the current warm period seems very normal, though a little cooler than, most of the past 10,000 years.”
At that station, maybe. How can this graph represent global temperature?
At that station? For heavens sake when the temperature remains high for centuries on end – is it happening just at that station?? This has been reflected at other stations in Greenland.
The temperature is measured with great accuracy in intervals of about a decade.
Dont you think this is far better representation of Global Temperatures or at least NH temperatures than Briffa’s one tree somewhere in Siberia, which has been depended on by the IPCC?
You are quite happy to accept that BS are you?
Yep, they screwed up the first time and they did it agin this time. Why would they use a shorter GISS plot when they could easily have placed the Mann et al. (2008) plot?
Whomever is responsible for this needs a science spanking. 🙂
“Respecting Religious Belief
Friday, October 2, 2009
By Thomas Brewton
The belief in man-made global warming is a secular religious dogma, one which the rest of us should be allowed to respect without being compelled by the secular political state to suffer its disastrous consequences.”
>>> “In the classic gnostic pattern, liberal-progressives see political society as badly aligned, causing all sorts of human misery.”
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/10/02/respecting-religious-belief/comment-page-1/
…-
Eric Voegelin:
““The revolution of the Gnostics,” writes Voegelin, “has for its aim,” one at least among others, “the monopoly of existential representation.” It cannot abide challenges or alternatives to itself. In addition to this, the Gnostic assault on reality seeks “a change in the nature of man and the establishment of a transfigured society.”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3966
Trouble is , its only one graph, and with the weight of the media, sifs, polictians, financiers etc all pushing it, I fear it will be many years before rational science and proper debate takes place.
Its interesting that WUWT is a number one science blog which suggests to me that a lot of people with an interest in science quietly question the AGW doom and gloom we are constantly fed, but are, quite rightly, fearful of nailing their colours to the mast.
Ding dong, the stick is dead. 😀
Still a broken link on the blink comparator….
How does anybody feels 0.4°C temperature difference?. Nevertheless it works the same as a 40°C increase, nobody cares about such tiny details. It´s Global Warming anyway, take it or leave it!, anyway they will proceed as planned.
March writes, “Imagine how much would pass under the bridge if it wasn’t for te efforts of the likes of a certain A Watts and S McIntyre. Alarmists down-under frequently posit that a nobel prize awaits those who disprove the current consensus. By my reckoning both you guys are winners, several time over. KUTGW”
From Japan, awaiting a super typhoon, without the ability to think and/or comment except in the most cursory way, I am so much in agreement with March that I had to chime in. There are many others who also have been making the herculean efforts to restore the integrity of the scientific method, but I agree that Watts and McIntyre, Anthony and Steve, have been exceptional leaders and researchers. If the Nobel recognized truth, science, and cutting edge research, these two deserve awards. The efforts and results are magnificent. I am more grateful than I can express.
Its interesting isn’t it. For the UN to pull this graph someone must be reading the realist blogs and in particular Anthony’s.
I wonder what they are making of the Briffa problem and the team response.
redneck (02:11:46) : I’m not really familiar with a “hickey stick”
It was a misprint. It should read “hokey stick”.
hokey – dictionary definitions –
Merriam-Webster : obviously contrived, phoney.
Cambridge : too emotional or artificial and therefore difficult to believe.
I learned many years ago that there are, amongst many others, two honorable professions; being an advocate and being an analyst. The job of the advocate, as, for example, the defence attorney at a murder trial, is to convince the jury that his client is innocent; he/she is not looking for the truth. By contrast, the analyst is always looking for the truth, and must present ALL the evidence; that which supports his/her idea, and that which does not.
What is highly immoral and reprehensible, is for an advocate to pretend he/she is behaving as an analyst. It is here that the IPCC fails; miserably.
The explorers logbooks are almost useless. They give a snapshot in time and place. As was reported by a ship docking on the west coast of canada in the 17th century where it recorded a temperature of 133°F.
You can contruct nothing with this anecdotal evidence. However, other evidence indicates that the planet has warmed and cooled several times since some of those logs were written. So, yes, climate changes.
It is also worth noting that wood is a great insulator and also a good storer of heat. Try going into your wooden shed in the middle of summer with the windows shut and see how hot you get!!
A hickey stick is a scientific name for an object that when used to strike a person leaves a mark where the stick strikes. My girlfriend used to “give” me hickies on my neck but she did not use the more scientific hickey stick which seems to be getting popular these days with the IPPC.
OOPS –IPCC
“By a register of the temperature of the atmosphere . . . it was found that the thermometer invariably stood at least from two to five degrees Fahrenheit, and on one or two occasions, seven degrees higher on the outside of the ships than it did on the shore, owing probably to a warm atmosphere created around the former by the constant fires on board”
They had BBQ’S!!!!!! Some things never change.
Back in the world of the short-term, RSS for September is in, the first to report this month: 0.467. That’s quite high for recent history, it looks as if it’s returning to trend:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss
Compared with other sources and average of all four, for the past 12 months:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/last:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:12/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/last:12/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/last:12/plot/rss/last:12
Algore’s peace prize is not so Noble.
The use of old data in charts is not restricted to the IPCC. In the state of California’s new draft climate adaptation report, there is a sea level chart, on Page 19, that ends in 2000, with projected increases extending beyond that date.
Inconveniently, actual tide station data indicates the mean sea levels peaked in 1998 and have been lower since.
stephen.richards (06:16:29) :
“It is also worth noting that wood is a great insulator and also a good storer of heat.
It appears to be so – ask Briffa, Mann et al.
Re: Richard (05:32:39) :
“At that station? For heavens sake when the temperature remains high for centuries on end – is it happening just at that station?? This has been reflected at other stations in Greenland.”
—
Good. Now, is the globe covered with ice up to a height of some 2 to 4 kilometres? In other words, are stations on top of ice caps representative for the whole world? Does the South Pole exhibit the same warming over the past couple of decennia als, say, Holland?
“Dont you think this is far better representation of Global Temperatures or at least NH temperatures than Briffa’s one tree somewhere in Siberia, which has been depended on by the IPCC?”
Yes. Fortunately that tree showed the same sort of figure as a host of different proxy or non-proxy data, which is where the IPCC depends on also.
“You are quite happy to accept that BS are you?”
No, I’d have preferred an ice age. Unfortunately I lost one of my main hobbies in Holland due to Dutch Warming: skating. I depend on observations like this, among others of course, to accept ‘that BS’.
BBC still features hockey stick prominently
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8285247.stm
what a bunch of dopies.
Alan the Brit,
I hate to be picky with what was otherwise a well thought out post, but in the case of our Bert, I don’t think there was ever any opposition to his theory of SR. Lorentz had already written an explanation for the unexpected Michelso-Morley experiment by calculating a contraction for length along the direction of motion, a transformation that Bert took further. Poincare was also working along the same lines.
Bert was indeed expecting a torrent of criticism after he published his special theory, but was met with only silence and disinterest, except for a letter from Max Planck asking for some further clarification.
One of my favourite examples of scientific paradigm shifts comes from the 1998 realisation that the expansion of the universe was speeding up. Imagine that! It was conventional wisdom up until then to say that gravity was slowing down the rate of expansion, and the only question was whether the universe would fall back in on itself, or continue to expand albeit at an ever decreasing rate. To suddenly rethink their whole theory of how the universe works, including introducing the concept of dark energy, was breathtaking. That is an example of how science should work. A lesson there for the warmists, methinks.
Don Keiller,
Thanks for the link.
“The UK Colonial Registers and Royal Navy Logbooks project, a partnership that includes the Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of Sunderland, aims to make all the logs available online.”
I’m sure Steve McIntyre will be relieved, if not surprised, to hear this.
Here is a news flash…….
There is no such thing as “the greenhouse effect”.
The atmosphere has a cooling effect as well as a warming effect. The deceptive term “greenhouse effect” implies only a warming effect, yet gasses behave as a liquid to temperature and while they may warm, they also cool. If they did not then every thing living at equator would be cooked alive at noon on a daily basis. The surface of the moon (which of course has no atmosphere) reaches 123º C in the Sun.
CO2 absorbs heat but it cannot trap heat. When it has absorbed heat it expands as do the all the other gasses it is mixed with such as nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour. Do not be fooled by the false claims that CO2 is special or unique in the way it is effected by heat. All gasses absorb and re-emit heat. It does not matter that they do this at various frequencies, all that maters is that they all do it. If they did not they would not be gasses, they would be solid ice. Therefore all gasses absorb and re-emit heat and so must all be greenhouse gasses, if not then none at all.
These mixed gasses when warmed, then rise up through the atmosphere and exchange the heat with colder gasses higher up. The higher they rise the colder it gets. As space is 0º K or – 278º C there is only one possible outcome. All the heat energy received from the sun is re-emitted back into space. You do not need to be a scientist to understand this concept. It is more than attested to by 4, 500,000,000 years of relative temperature stability. If CO2 could trap heat and cause global warming it would have done so already. Perhaps when CO2 was @ 1000 ppm or 2000 ppm or even when it was @ 3000 ppm. Maybe runaway global warming should have occurred when CO2 was 4000, 5000, 6000, or 7000 ppm as it has been in the past. But it has never occurred at these levels so why should we be concerned about 100 ppm increase?
The answer of course, is that we shouldn’t.
Gasses in a greenhouse cannot convect but gasses in the atmosphere can convect. So in a greenhouse there is a “greenhouse effect” but in the atmosphere there is not.
A “greenhouse gas” is a gas inside a greenhouse.
The key is convection which is why you will never hear the topic of convection being properly discussed by proponents of AGW.
Like I said earlier, you do not need to be a scientist to work this out. The truth is hanging there like an over ripe apple waiting to be plucked. All you need to do is reason it through with logic and common sense and the AGW scam as it is will evaporate.
Remember, there is no substance known to man that can trap heat! Think about that for a moment.
For a more detailed look at the AGW deception download this free .pdf.
[snip – self promotion ]
I cited in a previous post the BSM has come of age. What’s the BSM, the Blog Stream Media.
Hanno’ 2009 ‘eh….. The perfect graph for the Mickey Mouse Climate Theory of everything.
….. I wonder if he has a graph for carbon futures????
Anyway for the real scientists working for the AGW Monkeys…. This guy might have some tips for you…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR71GnQ4CU4
Mike Jonas (06:09:18) :
redneck (02:11:46) : I’m not really familiar with a “hickey stick”
It was a misprint. It should read “hokey stick”.
hokey – dictionary definitions –
Merriam-Webster : obviously contrived, phoney.
Cambridge : too emotional or artificial and therefore difficult to believe.
———————————————————-
Is that the same stick they use for Hokey pokey…..?
RSS MSU 9-2009: +0.48 °C
Rank 2/31
Woodfortrees,
First of all, we temperatire plotters love you!
Secondly, RC has a new (old) thread on how to interpret trends:
http://www.realclimate.org/
Sophistry in politics (07:13:43) Well put. For those living in a dry climate, where 30-50°F are gained and lost most everyday, you know the only thing that diminishes this range is temporarily higher humidity. The AIRS satellite shows CO2 concentrations in the western hemisphere highest in April annually, and highest in Alaska and Canada where there is virtually no human cause for CO2 at that time. Anthro-CO2 is begging for a death certificate as a source of alarm.
Now moving on to the next fake graph, the carefully prepared backup plan …. It’s all about the taxes, the AGW is just the guilt trip mechanism to make you pay.
It never was about science, facts or truth.
Alan the Brit
The Earth being flat part was not a part of that consensus. Since Aristothenes had measured the circumference prior to 200 BC. The whole flat earth thing is a myth though not as hamful a one as the hockey stick.
The Aristotelian model the church used considered the Earth to be a ball about 4000 miles in radius. The Earth centered idea is one that made sense based on observations. When new data came in the model had to change. Unlike CAGW to date; the Earth centered model was eventually tossed out when a better explanation became available.
Has anyone taken the trouble to actually read this report? It makes horrifying reading, enough to convince any of our policymakers to immediately batten down the hatches and say goodbye to civilization.
The Hanno diagram is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to disinformation contained in the report. There are many instances of pure distortion, such as citing a 23% reduction in Arctic sea ice extent between 2005 and 2007 whilst failing to acknowledge a 23% increase between 2007 and 2009 and stating that the Arctic was well on the way to open water during summer. It makes massive statements of fact on issues that are only presented in terms of probabilities in the IPCC report and the Secretary General is perhaps the worst in this respect and he has been to the Arctic to know the true story. The whole report needs thoroughly debunking by respected professional climatologists before the time of the Copenhagen circus.
Par for the course at the UN! So appreciate this blog.
Its getting embarrassing in Britain – the whole Yamal story has yet to appear anywhere in the mainstream media – and the left-liberal press has totally betrayed its origins, arguing entirely ‘from authority’ with the UN at the top. The green movement has abandoned history – as to who led on the main issues in the 80s and 90s – it was not the UN, or the Royal Society, or the Government’s chief scientific advisors.
Well with the UN ou(s)ting of the hockey stick(s); there’s not much to talk about any more.
So what better place to report some good news for a change.
Today it is announced that three Americans have won the Nobel Physics Prize; and one of those three is none other than George E. Smith; the inventor of the CCD, that launched modern digital photography.
So since my telephone did NOT ring in the wee hours of the morning, I can say again categorically, that I am not that fellow, who just received the Nobel Physics Prize. Besides he’s a much more handsome chap than I am; but he certainly is well deserving of the prize. It is not too often that the Physics prize is awarded for other than deep blue sky lunatic fringe stuff; but recognizes technology instead.
Well the Charged Coupled Device that my famous namesake invented, is a new Semiconductor Physics phenomenon; and not just another “transistor design” , so it really is Basic Physics.
Congratulations George; you deserve it.
GES
oakwood (00:00:33) : “I also start the day with WUWT, but, unlike you, I always get depressed with the realisation that its impact on AGW proponents and, in particular, politicians is absolutely zilch.”
I met with my representative a few nights ago. He told me the best policy is to write all your reps, even if they don’t seem to be listening. They do add up the numbers of letters they get, pro and con, on all the issues. If the numbers go strongly in one direction, they’ll alter course at least to some degree. Write.
In the Colonies, see http://www.congress.org/
The problem with recording a temperature trend for the last 150 years is that of interpolating the odd records that were available before satellites, which are more systematic, with ground based, which can be/were sparse and non existent in places..
Since different data sources and data sets, are used they should be taken as different data. Like Arctic ice, before 1979 no-one knew its extent, although we know that the warming was greater in the 1930’s than today, so as far as we know, the Arctic was smaller than the 1979-2009 average.
Going by proxies however, nothing in th elast 40 years proves itself to be exceptional. Even 10 year abrupt climatic changes are well recorded in ancient ice, over the holocene period
I quote:
The IPCC first projected a global warming rate of 0.03°C per year in 1992. The errors of the IPCC projection over the years 1992 to 2008 were little different from the errors from the no-change model, when compared to actual measured temperature changes. When the IPCC’s warming rate is applied to a historical period of exponential CO2 growth, from 1851 to 1975, the errors are more than seven times greater than errors from the no-change model.
However, here is the more interesting question: The IPCC bases much of its revision and methodology on the Hadley Centre which in turn provides the MET office with its forecasts. On this basis, the Met office have made 8 consecutive seasonal forecast failures, and numerous short term failures. Years ago they were excellent as a weather forecaster. Now they can’t predict El Nino or El Nina. What has turned the MET office into a one time reliable forecaster, but nowadays scientifically mediocre institution?
secondly, perhaps more importantly, even if the unbiased temperature data showed a slight warming trend from 1999-2009 (whether it does or not is open to dispute), then the causes are the subject of interest.
Sophistry in politics (07:13:43)
You nutcase.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
It’s not really a “Greenhouse” effect, that’s just the tag it got given so that the scientifically illiterate (Like you!) can understand it.
Read and learn.
Read the rest of Dr Spencer’s work too.
Paul Clark:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2007/offset:-0.14/plot/gistemp/from:2007/offset:-0.25/plot/uah/from:2007/plot/rss/from:2007
up until 2008, the different temperature readings followed each other pretty closely. Since then, it’s gotten pretty wild. Anyone have an explanation?
I was wondering what the lefties have been up to. Getting ready for some plausible denyability it seems.
‘No compromise’ faction attacks climate bill
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-01-climate-bill-attacked-from-the-far-left
Scott, in reference to the above, it is fascinating to see that RC say that a number of warming records have been broken during the last 3 years. I notice they don’t bring attention to cold or snow records broken during this three year period. Might not that indicate a lack of impartiality at RC?
For the record here are a list of climatic related records.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records
Wikipedia it might be, so correct any biases if they’re noticed
Re: P Wilson (08:37:13) :
“Scott, in reference to the above, it is fascinating to see that RC say that a number of warming records have been broken during the last 3 years. I notice they don’t bring attention to cold or snow records broken during this three year period. Might not that indicate a lack of impartiality at RC?”
—
On the other hand, there might be no such records.
ok, so plotting a ten year period from 2000-2010
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:111/plot/uah/last:111/plot/rss/last:111/plot/gistemp/last:111/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:111/trend/plot/uah/last:111/trend/plot/rss/last:111/trend/plot/gistemp/last:111/trend
shows that temperatures haven’t been flat for the last 10 years
typos woops. *have* been flat for the last 10 years
“”” Sophistry in politics (07:13:43) :
Here is a news flash…….
There is no such thing as “the greenhouse effect”.
The atmosphere has a cooling effect as well as a warming effect. The deceptive term “greenhouse effect” implies only a warming effect, yet gasses behave as a liquid to temperature and while they may warm, they also cool. If they did not then every thing living at equator would be cooked alive at noon on a daily basis. The surface of the moon (which of course has no atmosphere) reaches 123º C in the Sun.
CO2 absorbs heat but it cannot trap heat. When it has absorbed heat it expands as do the all the other gasses it is mixed with such as nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour. “””
CO2 is about one molecule in 2597.4 molecules of the atmosphere, so that means that CO2 molecules on average are separated by about 13.75 molecular spacings. That means that any particular CO2 molecule that has absorbed a long wave IR photon, is not even aware that there are any like molecules anywhere. Just imagine a packed cocktail party, and there are 13 other people between you and the pretty girl you would like to meet. Fat chance of meeting her.
Consequently a GHG molecule like CO2 interracts only with the ordinary atmospheric molecules of N2, O2, and occasionally an Ar atom. in an average atmosphere, the CO2 is about as likely to encounter an H2O molecule about as often as it does an Ar atom.
So the energy captured by the CO2 is quickly shared with the ordinary atmospheric gases; and it is they that expand because of the increased mean particle kinetic energy. So it is not as if somwhow the CO2 expands and thereby “floats up” in the atmosphere. The whole atmosphere expands, and there is no net diffusive gradient that would greatly disturb the GHG molecule’sposition in the air mass, which simply carries it along in the general convective flow.
For the same reason; any re-radiated thermal radiation which might progress either to outer space, or towards the surface, is a function only, of the ordinary atmosphere and its temperature.
So there really wouldn’t be any GHG signature in the atmospheric radiation.
Now I know there are some nitpickers out there so let me add, that at very high altitudes, where the mean time between collisions becomes longer than the lifetime of the CO2 excited state, there will be spontaneous emissions from the CO2 moelcule, and that could have a characteristic spectrum; but by that time the number of molecules is way down, so any such signals would be expected to be weak, and not have a significant influence on the total atmospheric radiation spectrum.
Anthony,
I would not read too much into this – it’s a typical bureaucratic FU. Pulling that specific graph, clouded in rhetorical waffle, doesn’t deserve any focussed attention here.
Don Keiller (05:20:11) :
It’s curious that the National Archives retains such raw 18th and 19th Century material for the dilligent student of climate history; it would be better if Phil Jones had a go at those journals first so that we only have to digest the “value-added” version.
Somebody ought to put Chrissie Maher onto the climate lexicon problem.
WSJ: “Crusader for Syntactic Disambiguation Exprobrates Banks’ Labored Locutions:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125476135344665075.html
The land ocean temperature graph is an adjusted graph.
I don’t know how good the data on this site is, probably biased in the other direction but it purports to show raw temperature data. Interesting if it is real:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/10/03/climate-data-top-secret/
Alexander Feht (04:40:56) :
Nevertheless, I quit in disgust. The language they use in the UN is inhumanly perverse; it’s not even “bureaucratic” — it’s something indescribable.
Yes, and it’s very important that members of this cult simply make the “correct noises”, which make no good sense to anyone on the outside, or no rational sense to anyone trying to use language in order to understand things and communicate understanding, as opposed to using language to identify like members and/or manipulate other people so as to be able to keep manipulating them, that is, where the means, propagandistic thought control, are also the ends.
Luboš Motl (23:44:22) :
“It’s silently gone. Those who were able to separate justified results from nonsense aren’t credited with their contributions. But thank God, at least one wrong graph is gone.
Thousands of them are still waiting. And when thousands of wrong graphs are also removed, it will still not be the end of the movement because the movement is not really about any graphs, neither correct nor fake ones”.
Right, removing the hockey stick graph does not stop the scam.
If the scam is not halted our economies will be killed and so is our freedom.
A little OT, but while we are discussing organisations who make it up, here’s a quote I never expected to see on The Beeb, especially the last phrase:-
“But the sceptics movement is not just about tackling conspiracy theorists who spread their message by independent means on the internet; there is also a drive to tackle bad reporting of science in the mainstream media.”
See for yourselves http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8291688.stm
RR Kampen (08:41:22)
“On the other hand, there might be no such records.”
Thats my point
Apple Quits Chamber Of Commerce Over Climate Change
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/apple-quits-chamber-of-co_n_310301.html
You would think a company as scientific as Apple would be able to take a non-biased look at the actual climate data and give a logical response. But alas, its not in their social interest. Oh well, how many socialist companys down and how many socialist companies to go?
OceanTwo (05:15:00) :
A good point and something I’ve wondered about.
Re: P Wilson (09:36:39) :
“On the other hand, there might be no such records.”
“Thats my point”
___
Um, I’m confused here now on wattsupwiththat… What’s irony and what isn’t. Do you surmise cooler temperatures were not recorded as in not subjected to any measurement whatsoever, or that record low temperatures simply didn’t occur?
Posting at Real Climate is exasperating beyond believe. They now have a thread up that claims that nothing has changed with regard to the temperature rise over the last decade. Their arguments border on the absurd. I tried to answer them point by point, and of course I was censored. These people don’t want to discuss the issues – they simply want to propogate propoganda and they don’t want anyone with contrary opinions to be heard. They pretend to voice dissent; but only in those cases where they are sure that they can answer the issues. For things that they cannot answer, censorship is always their method. I took a screenshot of my post to Real Climate while it was awaiting moderation. Here it is.
REPLY: Keep screen caps of your comments after they show “in moderation” and then make a second screencap afterwards when it disappears.
– Anthony
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2009/10/more-fraudulent-censorship-at-real.html
Don Keiller (05:20:11) :
In “The Times” today and online at;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6862384.ece
“Explorer’s logbooks prove a welcome bounty for climate change doubters”
Read and enjoy.
I cannot speak for the University of Sunderland, but if the Met Office Hadley Centre is invloved, what’s the chance of the logs for His Majesty’s Ships Isabella & Dorothea, & the others, becoming “mislaid” or otherwise lost, along with that famous letter from the Admiralty to the Royal Society, (could have been the other way round so do correct for the record – 1817 I recall tbc!) being equally mislaid?
Vincent (07:08:52) Thank you:-) Pick away please if I have got something wrong!
Wondering Aloud (08:11:57) 🙂 I did mention Ancient Greece, the data I’d gathered implied that largely after the fall of that great civilisation that such beliefs/information became lost until later being re-discovered. The point about flat Earth being a myth is quite correct, but that was also partly my point, as were so many ideas & beliefs throughout history (that I had no time or space to mention), but they were WIDELY believed by the masses at the time. Their ignorance served the establishment well for many a year. Nothing changes does it? One now sees an all too eager developing world manipulating the science in the hope that the apparent “rich” west will now dole out squillions in aid/grants/compensation/quid-pro-quo, essentially reversing the global wealth! However, history shows us that those nations who were able to indulge in trade with others, became wealthy, (eg Britain, yes I know we weren’t perfect either before anyone starts), whereas those who just extracted wealth from others, (eg Spain via gold & silver from South America) tended to fall economically behind! We live in interesting times!
This whole episode with the Mann/Briffa data is eerily similar to the Michael Bellesiles scandal a dozen or so years ago.
He had published a history book (The Arming of America) and several peer reviewed articles purporting that gun ownership among Americans was the exception until after the Civil War. The liberals loved it, the book won a prestigious award, and the issue was politicized (even entered in as evidence in 2nd Amendment lawsuits). A LAW PROFESSOR, James Lindgren, began raising questions about the raw data, and, independently, a Masters Degree student, Clayton Cramer, who had been analyzing some of the same source material Bellesiles claimed to use. Bellesiles refused to provide his raw material – it was missing, it was destroyed when his office was flooded, etc. (any of this sound familiar?).
Well, the end result was that some of Bellesiles claims were so egregious (like having access to CA records that were know to be destroyed in the 1906 San Fran earthquake and fire, he reviewed microfich data at a library that didn’t have ANYTHING on microfiche, and more) that everything imploded, the theory was dismissed as a fraud, Bellesiles book was stripped of its award, and he was forced to leave the university where he taught (Emory). Funny, though, the MSM didn’t report these events nearly as much as they did Bellesiles’ book and the theory when it was published (the NYT, in particular).
So here is an example where 1. peer review did not work, 2. other members of the professional community either refused to examine, or were afraid to criticize, a popular theory, and 3. the [issue] was exposed by investigations done by scholars OUTSIDE that community, publishing their own non-peered analysis.
This case makes for interesting reading. These things do happen.
Ron de Haan (09:32:25) :
Luboš Motl (23:44:22) :
“It’s silently gone. Those who were able to separate justified results from nonsense aren’t credited with their contributions. But thank God, at least one wrong graph is gone.
Thousands of them are still waiting. And when thousands of wrong graphs are also removed, it will still not be the end of the movement because the movement is not really about any graphs, neither correct nor fake ones”.
Right, removing the hockey stick graph does not stop the scam.
If the scam is not halted our economies will be killed and so is our freedom.
Our freedom has been killed a long time ago… Peer reviews only to pro-AGW papers, Media’s banning of clean science, dumb politicians, etc.
“The science has become more irrevocable than ever” according to Ban Ki-moon in the Foreword. Now that Figure 1.3 has been revoked, the Secretary-General may want to reconsider these words.
RR Kampen (07:01:15) said:
“Unfortunately I lost one of my main hobbies in Holland due to Dutch Warming: skating.”
As if. Kampen has claimed this a number of times now.
I grew up in an area that occasionally got down to – 20°F in winter, yet every city and town had indoor and outdoor skating rinks. In sunny, warm California the shopping malls have skating rinks.
Yet we are being implausibly told that Holland is so backward that they don’t have commercial skating rinks, and that a mere 0.6° change in global temps denies Mr Kampen the opportunity to ice skate like he did when things were 0.6° cooler. Ri-i-i-i-i-ght.
So that’s his argument, if you can believe it. When his argument comes down to a statement like that, he’s lost it. Note the “Dutch” warming. Is that like global warming? Or local weather?
But all is not lost. He could move to Southern California to ice skate.
Louis Hissink (08:48:33) :
Anthony,
I would not read too much into this – it’s a typical bureaucratic FU. Pulling that specific graph, clouded in rhetorical waffle, doesn’t deserve any focussed attention here.
As others have pointed out, there is growing sensitivity to the skeptical blogosphere. It is probable that discredited hockey sticks across the AGW landscape will now disappear. But the damage is done. The public without benefit of the MSM, is learning how a relatively small cult led by accepted “authorities” can influence widespread thinking.
The IPCC and UN is in a quagmire. Pulling the phony data makes them look like amateur FUs. NOT pulling the data makes them look the same. It’s called painting oneself into a corner.
“hot gasses rise”
It is a simple fact that air combined with water vapor is substantially less dense than is dry air, temperature and pressure being equal. The more water vapor contained, i.e., the higher the humidity, the less dense the mixture is.
Atomic weight of O2 = 32, N2 = 28.04, and H2O = 18. As there are approximately the same number of molecules of gas in a given volume at the same temperature and pressure, included H2O vapor reduces substantially the combined density.
Less dense gasses rise relative to more dense gasses.
When this mixture (water vapor and air) rises high enough to colder altitudes, the latent heat of the H2O vapor is exchanged with the surrounding colder air, and the H2O vapor condenses into clouds, giving up its latent heat. The latent heat given up by the H2O vapor in this change of state is 540 BTU per pound of water vapor.
The specific heat exchange is very small relative to the latent heat exchange due to the chang of state of H2O from a gas to a liquid.
The American Thinker takes a whack at the hockey stick.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html
RR Kampen (07:01:15) :
Re: Richard (05:32:39) : “At that station? For heavens sake when the temperature remains high for centuries on end – is it happening just at that station?? This has been reflected at other stations in Greenland.”..
“Dont you think this is far better representation of Global Temperatures or at least NH temperatures than Briffa’s one tree somewhere in Siberia, which has been depended on by the IPCC?”
Yes. Fortunately that tree showed the same sort of figure as a host of different proxy or non-proxy data, which is where the IPCC depends on also.
Well since that record has been shown to be BS, maybe the host of other data that IPCC depends on is BS too? And what “non-proxy data” does the IPCC depend on to show that the current warming is in any way unusual in the last 10,000 or even 1,300 years.
You would rather accept the “evidence” tortured out of 1 tree, by mysteriously interpreting its tree rings, than the continuous accurate scientific temperature records in the ice-core data, which incidentally is also corroborated by “a host of different proxy or non-proxy data”, which unfortunately the IPCC chooses to ignore.
“You are quite happy to accept that BS are you?”
No, I’d have preferred an ice age. Unfortunately I lost one of my main hobbies in Holland due to Dutch Warming: skating. I depend on observations like this, ..
I presume you mean “ice skating”. Well you would have been even more unhappy during the Medieval warm period and most of the Holocene. Either find a rink somewhere or wait for it to get cold again, if you are not too old and decrepit by then.
Of course you would depend on observations like this because your observations, (spanning how much time?), is climate not weather.
” Smokey (11:12:05) :
RR Kampen (07:01:15) said:
“Unfortunately I lost one of my main hobbies in Holland due to Dutch Warming: skating.”
But all is not lost. He could move to Southern California to ice skate.”
Skating (racing) is very popular in Holland, and they have huge (long track) ice rinks for that.
And last winter it was so cold there the canals were freezing as they were in the time of Bruegel:
http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/463-3128
http://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/the-canals-have-frozen-in-the-netherlands-and-the-dutch-are-rediscovering-their-heritage/
Dendroclimatology is a hoax:
http://www.biocab.org/TR_Width-Temp.jpg
RR Kampen, what do you say? Are you going to recant your claim now that warming has kept you from ice skating? Before you answer, check out Alexej Buergin’s links above.
For those who want to see how the alarmists pervert science, this link has some good info on detecting junk science:
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-detect-junk-science.html
NO Warming in 251 year British Temperature Record:
http://carbon-sense.com/2009/10/01/british-record/
Sorry, that was 351 year British Temperature Record
The link was published at Climate Depot
Smokey: I don’t think R.R. Kampen’s main hobby is skating.
I will no longer be purchasing Apple products. It was bad enough Gore was given a position on the board and shares at far less than their market value and then used his horror-comedy documentary to advertise Apple products thereby help increase the stock price. Apple and Gore are not having my money.
I asked the United Nations Environment Program to provide a comment about the Wikipedia graph, and received on Friday the following statement from Peter Gilruth, director of the UNEP’s Division of Early Warning and Assessment:
Dear Mr. Ambler,
Thank you for bringing the issue of the graph on page 5 to my attention. Mr. Steiner has asked me to respond in my capacity as Director of the Division responsible for the production of the Science Compendium.
Indeed you spotted a graph that does not belong in this Compendium. In brief an error occurred, whereby a ‘place holder graph’ during the layout stage of the report was not replaced by the actual graph and correct reference intended for this section. Regrettable as such an occurrence is, this simply comes down to human error during the final layout phase of the report.
Our team spotted this following the launch of the report in Washington. As the printed version of the report was only delivered a few hours before the launch, we could only rectify this in the following days.
The correct graph and reference have now been inserted in the online version and an errata slip has been prepared for all the printed copies to be disseminated in the coming weeks.
The Compendium’s objective was to provide an overview of the latest science and thus the editorial team was tasked with identifying relevant and peer reviewed research up to August 2009.
Notwithstanding the inclusion of an erroneous graph, which has now been rectified, we believe that the Compendium does provide access to vital research to a broader audience and then can help to inform public debate and policy makers.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Gilruth
I found Mr. Gilruth’s response to be evasive. Whose decision was it to click on Wikipedia in the first place? Why was a Wikipedia graph ever entered into a UN climate report? Worse, the graph replacement hadn’t taken place as of yesterday morning, which then brought to Mr. Gilruth’s attention. His response:
Thanks for the message. The site has been updated with the correct version. Note that the process has been a slow because internet connections tend to be a bit slow here in Nairobi.
I found this to be even more evasive, so I decided to take a more sustained look at the report. I found similar problems: more attribution issues, factual errors, distortions, etc.
Anyone so inclined is welcome to see the whole sorry tale here:
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/un-climate-report-rife-with-errors/
Regards
As the Universe expanded after the Big Bang, it cooled and condensed matter.
As the AGW and IPCC expanded after the Big Prediction, it too is cooling off, and condensing into primordial politics.
Faster than previously imagined, resorting to Wiki graphs.
No one wll ever notice, he said.
Carbon Credit Shares, 10 cents cheap. Get ’em while theyr’e hot, before they condense into roadside litter.
“”” Michael (09:38:44) :
Apple Quits Chamber Of Commerce Over Climate Change
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/apple-quits-chamber-of-co_n_310301.html
You would think a company as scientific as Apple would be able to take a non-biased look at the actual climate data and give a logical response. But alas, its not in their social interest. Oh well, how many socialist companys down and how many socialist companies to go? “””
Well anyone who would think that somehow Silicon Valley would be a bastion of free enterprise, and perhaps conservative thought, clearly has never worked in Silicon Valley.
It is Silicon Valley companies that keep alive the H1B visa scam, that imports low cost laborers from the third world; but unfortunately does not give them immigrant (green card) status. Legally they are here to do a specific task for specific period of time, for a specific company, and none of those variables is permitted to change. If the job gets cancelled the indentured servant is required to return to where they originated. H1B visas belong to the company; not the worker, and like Student visas; they are never supposed to be convertible into green card immigration visas.
But then, these sivalley “entrepeneurial” companies are quick to make campaign donations to politicians who will vote to maintain taxpayer gravy trains for them; like subsidies for alternative energy companies.
PG&E, the local utility, is heavily invested in “renewable energy”, such as hydro, wind, PEsolar etc, and the taxpayer support that they get from lobbying Congress animals; so PG&E was an early quitter from the Chamber of Commerce (whose membership is tens of thousands of US businesses; so PG&E and Apple will not be missed.
Anybody who is familiar with the history of Steve Jobs and Apple, is hardly surprised that they want to take their ball and go home.
Some of the wealthiest people in Sivalley, are as leftist as the current teleprompter reader in chief; it works out great when they have their hands out for taxpayer subsidies, such as the half billion to a wacky PV solar business. To read their publicity, you would think they have discovered a way to get more Watts per square metre than old Sol delivers on earth; well that yarn helped them get the gravy train money. (I happen to know someone who works for that company).
So get used to it; there are more people besides the Illegal invader supporters, who are happy to swill at the public trough, and even though they may have big Wall Street names; they aren’t any more entrepeneurial than Fanny Mae, and Freddie Mac.
But it’s a free country (for a while longer) so if you are apalled by the actions of these companies; don’t patronize them; it’s their pocket book that dictates company policy to them, and if they can fill it from the taxpayer coffers they will.
George E. Smith (13:59:09),
Re Apple’s backing away from the Chamber of Commerce: isn’t Al Gore on Apple’s Board of Directors? If so, that would explain everything.
Ok, I’m looking at the blinky graph… is it me or revisionist data that the annual mean for 1998/1999 seems to be different for the two graphs? Why would the annual mean change after the year is over?
Anthony, your message is getting through.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/un_quietly_scrubs_embattled_gr.html
RR Kampen (07:01:15) :
“Dont you think this is far better representation of Global Temperatures or at least NH temperatures than Briffa’s one tree somewhere in Siberia, which has been depended on by the IPCC?”
Yes. Fortunately that tree showed the same sort of figure as a host of different proxy or non-proxy data, which is where the IPCC depends on also.
How can that tree and the graph made from it be representative of anything at all, when it isn’t even representative of the measurement stations around it?
See:
Juraj V. (10:04:09) :
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222206740006&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222236310000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.giss.nasa.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fgistemp%2Fgistemp_station.py%3Fid%3D222234720005%26data_set%3D1%26num_neighbors%3D1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222202920005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222237110000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222208910006&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Crazy Kerry:
http://www.northstarnational.com/2009/10/06/john-kerry-awesome-recession-helping-environment/
Not quite related, but:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26174721-12250,00.html
The Aussie climate debate is heating up politically. This is the history in a nutshell:
Labor (the left wing party in Australia – would be considered socialist by US standards) is in power. They entered their ETS bill and it was rejected once by Parliament. If rejected again this would hand Rudd (the Prime Minister of Australia and head of the Labor party) a double dissolution trigger. This would allow him to dissolve both Houses of Parliament and call another election (which Labor would likely win in a landslide due to the dissarray in the oppostiion party).
Rudd wants to appear to be a leader on the world stage (notice the attendance during his UN speech?… admittedly he was after the Gaddafi tirade) and is determined to push the ETS on Australia before Copenhagen so that he can grandstand and claim the Aussies are leading the charge (of lemmings presumably).
The opposition (Liberals – still left wing by US political standards, and pretty much on the same spot on the political spectrum as the new Labor these days, but I digress) is split on how to deal with the second coming of the ETS legislation (which Rudd choses to dub CPRS – Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme… don’t get me started).
Labor is pushing the issue, because they know it drives a wedge between Liberals who want to out-and-out reject the bill again because they don’t believe the IPCC “science” and those like party leader Turnbull who wants to put amendments to the bill and negotiate with Labor.
Turnbull is between a rock and a hard place. He has openly said that not supporting CC legislation of some type is political suicide (polls unfortunately show that the majority of Aussies believe the IPCC hype). He also knows that the only other alternative is for Labor to do a deal with the devil (the Greens) to pass a much more harmfull anti-industry ETS variant. Turnbull claims big industry is backing his stance – of course they would. Better him than the Greens to form the legislation (lesser of two evils).
I see Andy Pitman (of self-professed IPCC fame) was active on the blog.
PS> The sensible Liberal members want to delay the ETS legislation until after Copenhagen. I guess if we are going to put this legislation through, they say, we want to make sure the rest of the lemmings are with us. Multi-lateral legislation would be a lot less harmful for the Australian economy which is heavily reliant on energy and energy-based exports.
Mike Borgelt (13:43:41) : Smokey: I don’t think R.R. Kampen’s main hobby is skating. Skating around the evidence?
P Gosselin (05:32:06) :
Thank the UN for a lesson in Latin…
A corrigendium for the compendium.
(Did I spell that right?)
Sorry: it’s “corrigendum”.
Their latin is as good as their science.
Re: Alexej Buergin (13:05:22) :
“Skating (racing) is very popular in Holland, and they have huge (long track) ice rinks for that.”
—
Correct, and many (every major city has one). Sven Kramer won the world title for the third time in a row this year and Holland produces the most world champions of all countries in the world. They train on Dutch rinks.
So I make good use of the rinks. But I prefer long distance over canals and lakes.
Re: “And last winter it was so cold there the canals were freezing as they were in the time of Bruegel:”
In fact average temperature last winter was fairly low (30-percentile) due to lack of mild days. All other winter parameters put this winter at normal to slightly above normal. In normal to even mild winters some skating is always possible. Every year before 1988; one out of two years between 1988 and 2000; once in three or four years this century (January 2007 would have been nice for any April month).
As the link says: ‘Dutch are rediscovering their heritage’, so true. An entire generation now exists without this heritage. For the first time since people cut bones to skate on.
Warming in Holland is stronger than the global average (some people here might have guessed this already!). There are explanations for this, too.
General remark: I find it a bit strange that people who don’t live here and are even so ignorant as to not know the country is built flat with skating rinks, are telling me how winters are here. Well, I’m telling you as is the normal thing; just listen and learn and ask questions if you don’t understand, okay? Like I will listen, learn and ask questions if I don’t understand when I absorb info about the locality of other authors in this world.
Re: “Mike Borgelt (13:43:41) : Smokey: I don’t think R.R. Kampen’s main hobby is skating. ”
—
‘Think’? Impressive. Well, just know it is – or call me a liar, okay?
Smokey (11:12:05) :
But all is not lost. He could move to Southern California to ice skate.
Or Phoenix Arizona… I once got to watch The Great One – Gretzky, in a game there. A magic moment I will always cherish. Nothing like sunning yourself by the pool, a stroll past the cactus garden with a “tall cool one” in hand, and an evening at the Hockey Rink… Heck, even Florida has hockey…
Hockey? Pah! Try hurling…now that hurts (Yes I was foolish enough to play it).
Someone ought to inform Schellnhuber that it’s (North) Americans who are embarasssing and forcing the IPCC to correct its reports.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6240611/Americans-are-illiterate-about-climate-change-claims-expert.html
Sophistry :
Fallacious argument with the intent to deceive. ( a fallacious argument )
This is the game. Sophistry is how we have been brought to this point with this AGW scam.
The only way to undo this dark magic is to be thorough in exposing the SOPHISTS and their fallacious arguments. Only this way we can avoid a future of carbon slavery. So I refer those who are interested in freedom and human rights, to my original post and to the subsequent replies it received.
The post has to be considered in its entirety or not at all. The two negative replies it received by Gallon and Smith are good examples of pure sophistry at work and if you follow the link supplied by Adam Gallon , http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/ you will find a clear example of sophistry. For example comparing the atmosphere to a blanket is a fallacious argument with the intent to deceive. So now its not a greenhouse effect, its a blanket effect. This is still a fraud no matter how you slice it.
Using circular logic to pile one falsehood on top of another is known as pathological lying. George E Smith’s reply is another blatant, yet ineffective example of sophistry and a cursory glance back to my original post will expose this crude attempt to take me out of context. Then he proceeds to correct my implied ignorance with my own points and concludes his post with the signature gobbledegook employed by all sophists.
Note: sophists in politics, more commonly referred to as spin doctors (see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are professional liars who are paid for with your taxes. They are paid by you to deceive you.
It is a human right to emit CO2. The trade in carbon credits is nothing less a trade in human rights. It is a slave trade and we are the slaves.
Yet, assuming the official figures are correct (which is highly unlikely) the entire carbon foot print of the whole of humanity is a mere 4.1 ppm per year.
It is time to get serious and learn the tricks employed by these AGW wizards because if we do not learn their game we cannot play and if we cannot play, we certainly cannot win.
This free e-book .pdf is a good starting point.
[snip – self promotion ]
In the mean time, earliest snow in history in Idaho:
http://www.ktvb.com/news/nearyou/woodriver/ktvbn-oct0509-wood_river_power.1e96b181a.html
SKI RESORT OPENS.
Earliest opening in 40 years
http://www.denverpost.com/extremes/ci_13498572
And even here in Florida (DAB, right next to the super speedway) we had a record “cold” on October 1.
RR Kampen (00:55:01)
The canals, lakes and ponds in the Netherlands are part of a complex infrastructure of waterways that are continuously pumped to maintain the balance between salt water infiltration, to dispose of sewage and wastewater, to provide cooling and drinking water, and for the larger canals as transport routes. These have no doubt changed considerably over the years, much of the heat to home and factories provided by the Groningen gas field ending up in the water courses.
aylamp (09:59:58) :
RR Kampen (00:55:01)
The canals, lakes and ponds in the Netherlands .. have no doubt changed considerably over the years, much of the heat to home and factories provided by the Groningen gas field ending up in the water courses.
So in other words, there has been Anthropogenic Warming, due to the causes you have mentioned. The Heat Island effect in urban areas is another way to produce localised heating and irrigation to cause localised cooling, as in parts of California and elsewhere.
But this is not due to global warming as per the AGW hypothesis, adopted by the IPCC and espoused by others, due to the increase CO2 in the atmosphere.
The ice-core records of Greenland, on the other hand, very accurately measure the temperature down to the year in decade intervals, continuously over a hundred thousand years. They are far more likely to accurately record widespread climate changes than the observation of ice skating in the canals of Holland made by RR Kampen. The heat from the ice skating rinks are also probably pumped into the canals to cool them (the rinks) and warm the canals.
According to these ice-core records it has been warmer for most of our current interglacial period, the Holocene, than the present. When these records show warmth that has lasted for centuries and even thousands of years, it is far more likely to indicate a widespread climatic phenomena than the freezing of canals in Holland, (which happened last year), or an individual tree in some part of Siberia, which had its own individual history quite distinct even from nearby trees.
So your willingness RR Kampen to accept the evidence of this mighty tree in the Blade of Briffa over the Greenland ice core records, just because it agrees with the IPCC’s evidence, which maybe similarly faulty, is unscientific in the extreme.
Re: aylamp (09:59:58) :
“The canals, lakes and ponds in the Netherlands are part of a complex infrastructure of waterways that are continuously pumped to maintain the balance between salt water infiltration, to dispose of sewage and wastewater, to provide cooling and drinking water, and for the larger canals as transport routes. These have no doubt changed considerably over the years, much of the heat to home and factories provided by the Groningen gas field ending up in the water courses.”
—
Do you live in Holland, or are you from the States telling me – ice skater, fisherman – what the waters in MY country look like??
Let me tell you, okay?
Over the past twenty years, sweet water in Holland got cleaner everywhere.
And the pumping of warm waste water has been drastically reduced. They tend to let it cool down in pools a bit first before releasing it into the canals (never in lakes!!!).
Anyway, if ice is no measure of a warming climate, maybe temperatures are. They rise. The number of frost days decreases (obviously). It’s as simple as that.
A check on increased urbanization using a comparison for stations spread over the country – urban, rural, airport, island in the Waddenzee – learns that warming over the past thirty years has been almost homogeneous across all of the country, though slightly more in the northeast. In this region urbanization happens to be minimal or negative over the past thirty years.
—
Re: Richard (11:27:21) :
“So your willingness RR Kampen to accept the evidence of this mighty tree in the Blade of Briffa over the Greenland ice core records, just because it agrees with the IPCC’s evidence, which maybe similarly faulty, is unscientific in the extreme.”
Your rushing to conclusions about my convictions is actually astounding. Flabbergasting. Takes my breath away, just like those people telling me what my country is like though they might not even be able to point at it on a globe!
Didn’t I mention I accept the vast body of evidence outside of that tree – like IPCC accepts a vast body of evidence outside of that tree? Forget the tree. There is VASTLY more evidence of warming. Use it, or discredit it. Concentrating on one tree is never going to let you disprove (A)GW. Never.
RR Kampen – I doubt that anyone will dispute 30 years of warming. The temperature has been going in a cycle over at least the last 200 years, of about 30 years warming alternating with about 30 years cooling. We’ve just finished the last 30 years warming, now we’re into a cooling phase.
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/GlobalTemperature_PDOPhaseTrends.JPG
I can’t tell you whether we will get the full 30 years of cooling, or whether it will cool more or less than it has in the past, because Neither I nor (as far as I can tell) anyone else knows the mechanisms. But it most certainly is not driven by CO2!! My guess is that it will cool a bit more this time, because the sun, which was rather active during the 20th century, is now looking rather inactive. Of course, that guess is dependent on the sun remaining inactive for a while – and again we don’t know the mechanisms.
Mike Jonas, you will have seen that September 2009 has gone to second or first place warmest in the record. As expected!
The solar minimum cannot at all wipe out the effect of extra CO2 into the atmosfere since 1998 plus a mild Niño.
Expect 2010 to break 1998 and 2005. In fact, expect the remainder of 2009 to go for medal places, which might even bring 2009 to bronze.
2008 suffered from an extreme Niña-event, a very deep minimum in the solar cycle and two volcanoes. It should have dropped to the coldest ten percent of years but instead entered the top ten (as did 2007), kicking out a ninety. Stronger evidence for GW is hardly imaginable.
There a huge nonclimatic issues in the Netherlands:
Annual averaged watertemperature of the river rhine at lobith, increased due to power plant cooling water (graph by KNMI 1999)
http://www.knmi.nl/kenniscentrum/de_toestand_van_het_klimaat_in_Nederland_1999/fig4.gif
full report (in dutch graph on page 14 of pdf)
http://www.knmi.nl/kenniscentrum/klimaatrapportage1999.pdf
Population in The Netherlands increased from 5 million in 1900 to 16 million in 2100.
Last winter broke records in the South, there were outages because meters froze at minus 20(!) celsius. The elfstedentocht did not happen because Friesland in the north wouldn’t freeze.
Hans Erren, Netherlands
RR Kampen (01:17:23) is astounded, flabbergasted and out of breath:
Mr Kampen’s convictions are delusions. He’s stated more than once that he can’t ice skate any more because of global warming. And now he turns the scientific method on its head by assuming that skeptical scientists must disprove AGW. Nonsense.
Global warming is entirely natural. So is global cooling. What the AGW contingent must prove is that warming is anything other than natural. But they can’t; all their “evidence” comes from always inaccurate computer models that are unable to predict the climate.
AGW caused by CO2 is the upstart conjecture. No skeptic has to prove or disprove anything about AGW. Rather, according to the scientific method the purveyors of AGW must show that the current climate is outside of the past parameters of natural variability. It is not. In fact, the current climate is quite benign. Past natural variability has been much more extreme: the LIA was much colder, and the MWP was warmer. And those were pre-SUV events.
Since the AGW crowd can not show that there is anything unusual about today’s climate, they try to turn the scientific method upside down, and demand that skeptics must in effect prove a negative. That’s not science, that’s desperation. They are desperate to show that our completely normal and natural climate is caused by human activity. Hogwash. There is no real world evidence that adding one molecule of human generated CO2, for every 34 molecules of CO2 emitted naturally by the Earth, is controlling the climate.
Alarmists are losing the debate. The planet itself is proving them wrong. So they insist that skeptics [which includes all good scientists] must falsify a conjecture that hasn’t been shown to exist in the real world.
Global warming and cooling happen naturally. If alarmists can ever show us empirical evidence that these changes are caused by human activity, skeptics will certainly sit up straight and pay attention. But so far, all the AGW ‘evidence’ comes right out of pre-programmed computers, not from the real world.
Just because the rooster crows in the morning doesn’t mean it is causing the sun to rise, and just because the planet warms doesn’t mean human activity is responsible.
Re: Hans Erren (05:18:15) :
“Annual averaged watertemperature of the river rhine at lobith, increased due to power plant cooling water (graph by KNMI 1999)
http://www.knmi.nl/kenniscentrum/de_toestand_van_het_klimaat_in_Nederland_1999/fig4.gif”
And since 1999?
Will this explain the ‘spring’ of Dec-Jan 2007?
You try to prove it cannot:
“Last winter broke records in the South, there were outages because meters froze at minus 20(!) celsius.”
See?
Except this was, of course, no record. Not even near. And you, mr. Hans Erren, know that.
“Population in The Netherlands increased from 5 million in 1900 to 16 million in 2100.”
O well, population on the Arctic Sea rose from nothing to nothing over the same period – but the ice melts today. And the temperatures rise (as an aside to a weather event: noticed the recent ‘heatwave’ there? Anomaly +15° C). Ice extent is nearing second largest negative anomaly now.
“The elfstedentocht did not happen because Friesland in the north wouldn’t freeze.”
Quite so.
In fact winter 2009 was fairly cold on average by lack of very mild days; all other winter parameters (Hellmann, number of ‘ijsdagen’ (Tx < 0.0° C) et cetera) put the winter at normal to slightly above.
This is disquieting, because qua circulation patterns this winter should have been severe (like 2006).
During the frost of January there was a large temperature gradient from south to north, the south being covered in excellent snow and enjoying a couple of good radiation nights.
You might have been in Holland when the frost period began on Boxing Day, stimulated by a classic Scandinavian blokkade. You might have been surprised it didn't get colder then – unless you saw the big read bear in Lapland and North Russia: a fenomenon that has become typical for recent years in autumn and first half of winter. In other words: twenty years ago the same circulation would have registered three days below minus ten till Sylvester, instead of zero. Prove me wrong!
—
Re: Smokey (05:22:25) :
"Mr Kampen’s convictions are delusions. He’s stated more than once that he can’t ice skate any more because of global warming. And now he turns the scientific method on its head by assuming that skeptical scientists must disprove AGW. Nonsense.
"Global warming is entirely natural." – Of course not, not this time. Theory and observations are in sync. Of course, for this reason the burden of disproving that lies with you. Just saying 'Global warming is entirely natural' or 'Alarmists are losing the debate' should evoke replies like 'the stars are holes in the night cloaked sky'. Or no replies.
"If alarmists can ever show us empirical evidence" – I'll tell you what. Put a pan of water on the fire. Observe how the temperature of the water rises. Now show me empirical evidence for the theory the fire under the pan is the cause of this temperature increase. I'll bet you you cannot! But I wonder if you see the point.
RR Kampen (04:31:46) : “Mike Jonas, you will have seen that September 2009 has gone to second or first place warmest in the record. As expected!
The solar minimum cannot at all wipe out the effect of extra CO2 into the atmosfere since 1998 plus a mild Niño.
…
2008 suffered from an extreme Niña-event, a very deep minimum in the solar cycle and two volcanoes. It should have dropped to the coldest ten percent of years but instead entered the top ten (as did 2007), kicking out a ninety. Stronger evidence for GW is hardly imaginable.”
re : “2008 suffered from an extreme Niña-event”
2008 was cooler on average than any of the previous 6 years. “Kicking out a ninety” is not particularly significant if you look at the graph I posted
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/GlobalTemperature_PDOPhaseTrends.JPG
since the PDO-related trend peaked around 2003. (1998 was the warmest year in this cycle, but that was a big El Nino year.) I was surprised when the trend peak turned out to be 2003 (on my simple maths), because I had expected it to be 1998, but on reflection I suppose it is reasonable because that is when the ocean temperature peaked. The oceans have been cooling since 2003, which to my mind is much more significant than surface temperatures – but I digress …
It is not surprising that 2009 is warmer than 2008, because it is supposedly an El Nino year, though not a very strong one perhaps. But then so far 2009 is cooler on average than 2002, 3, 4, 5, and 1998 of course.
re : 2008 “should have dropped to the coldest ten percent of years”
Not at this stage of the cycle (still at the warm end of a cooling phase).
re : “a very deep minimum in the solar cycle”
We still don’t know exactly how the solar cycle affects temperature. I suspect that in the short term it is comparable to the “noise” level – ie, not wildly significant – but that a prolonged period of low solar activity does show up over the longer term. It would help if we knew the precise mechanisms. The most severe forecast that I have seen for the current solar minimum is “A decline in average annual temperature of 2.2° C is here predicted for the mid-latitude regions over Solar Cycle 24.”
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf
That means presumably over the next 11 or so years, since cycle 24 is barely underway. And I have no idea how reliable the estimate is anyway; as I said, it’s the most severe I have seen.
re : “two volcanoes”
There are very often one or two volcanoes with VEI 4 or greater in any one year.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
It would appear to take a level 5 or 6 volcano to have much of an impact on climate. I don’t know what level the 2009 volcanoes were.
re : “Stronger evidence for GW is hardly imaginable”
The oceans are cooling, and have been cooling for about 5 years, which is longer than possible in the IPCC computer models. If the oceans are cooling, the planet is cooling. No surface or atmospheric temperatures can override that simple fact.
and finally
re : “September 2009 has gone to second or first place warmest in the record”
It might not be a good idea to emphasise a single month. The RSS temperature for September 2009 was only about 0.1 deg C (actually 0.112) above the Hadcrut3 temperature for February 1878.
RR Kampen:
“…the burden of disproving that lies with you. ”
Wrong as usual. Insisting that skeptical scientists must disprove AGW, or any other empirically baseless conjecture that comes along, perverts the scientific method. By now it appears that the perversion of science must be deliberate.
The accepted theory of natural climate change, which has been occurring for the past 4.6 billion years, does not need the additional entity of a very minor trace gas to explain it. Occam’s Razor says: throw the unnecessary entity out. CO2 is not necessary to explain the climate.
As Dr Roy Spencer likes to say: No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability. That is the long established theory, which must be falsified by the true believers in AGW. So far, they have failed.
By turning the scientific method on its head, and demanding that skeptics must prove that the alarmist AGW conjecture is right or wrong, the alarmist crowd is tacitly admitting that their own CO2=AGW conjecture fails.
Alarmists could come up with a conjecture that three-legged space aliens cause global warming. Are skeptical scientists required to disprove that conjecture? No. Rather, it is up to the alarmist crowd to falsify the existing theory of natural climate variability.
The fact that alarmists have failed to do so makes their belief that a minor trace gas will cause runaway global warming incredible. And the fact that they deliberately misrepresent the scientific method makes them devious.
Re: Mike Jonas (07:55:41) :
“It is not surprising that 2009 is warmer than 2008, because it is supposedly an El Nino year, though not a very strong one perhaps. But then so far 2009 is cooler on average than 2002, 3, 4, 5, and 1998 of course.”
2009 is going to bronze medal, mark my words. A slight Niño is enough for records nowadays. So the list will read 1./2. 1998/2005 (virtually ex aequo), 3. 2009. Actually 2009 could even still run for the absolute top.
“Not at this stage of the cycle (still at the warm end of a cooling phase).”
Other way round: we are at the cold (Niña) end of a new warming phase (as can be witnessed by last months, including september).
Niña effects still lagged into the first half of this year.
“The oceans are cooling, and have been cooling for about 5 years, which is longer than possible in the IPCC computer models. If the oceans are cooling, the planet is cooling. No surface or atmospheric temperatures can override that simple fact.”
But the oceans were record warm last summer!
“It might not be a good idea to emphasise a single month. The RSS temperature for September 2009 was only about 0.1 deg C (actually 0.112) above the Hadcrut3 temperature for February 1878.”
And these series are comparable? How? (I guess you meant 1978, by the way).
Re: Smokey (08:07:04) :
The accepted theory of natural climate change, which has been occurring for the past 4.6 billion years, does not need the additional entity of a very minor trace gas to explain it. Occam’s Razor says: throw the unnecessary entity out. CO2 is not necessary to explain the climate.”
—
A trace of cyanide can never explain a death…
You are doing away with one and a half centuries of physics, from Fourier to IPCC say.
Do you think if CO2 went out of the air wholesale global temperature would remain unchanged?
Correction re volcanoes – on checking I see the volcanoes you referred to were 2008 not 2009.
There were three level 4 or possible level 4 volcanoes in 2008. There were also three in 1931 and in 1951. There was no significant impact on temperature visible in the record for 1931 or 1951. Like I said, it seems to take a level 5 or 6 to impact global temperature. Pinatubo, a 6 in 1991, is clearly visible in the 1991-3 temperatures. The 5’s and 6’s in 1886, 1902, 1932-3 and 1982 also had a visible effect. I haven’t checked them all, but even some of the 5’s in the past appear not to have had much effect on global temperature.
RR Kampen (08:11:43) :
“Do you think if CO2 went out of the air wholesale global temperature would remain unchanged?”
Kampen is still improperly attempting to put the burden of proving/disproving AGW on skeptics. But the burden of proof is on the alarmist contingent to show that the theory of natural climate variability is wrong.
Because they have failed to falsify the existing theory, it does not follow that anyone else must show that AGW is valid or not. It is irrelevant. History is littered with failed conjectures. CO2=AGW is just another failed conjecture, which would have been discarded long ago if not for the enormous amounts of tax money being shoveled at it.
Finally, there is no real world proof that CO2 measurably affects temperature. Rather, CO2 is affected by temperature. It has been pointed out repeatedly that CO2 levels have been more than twenty times higher in the geologic past, for millions of years, without affecting temperature. In fact, even with greatly elevated CO2 levels the planet has gone into Ice Ages.
CO2 scare tactics don’t work on this site. We know better. There is nothing to be alarmed about. The climate is benign; it is normal. There is no “tipping point”. CO2 is irrelevant, and the entire alarmist putsch is fueled by grant money, status, and cognitive dissonance. When the scientific method is used properly, the CO2=AGW conjecture is falsified.
Smokey, you are simply evading rational discussion.
If you throw around remarks you have to corroborate them, be you a ‘sceptic’ or none.
You are telling the world that CO2 is no ‘greenhouse gas’. That is plain nonsense.
Re: Mike Jonas (08:32:45) :
“Correction re volcanoes – on checking I see the volcanoes you referred to were 2008 not 2009.
There were three level 4 or possible level 4 volcanoes in 2008. There were also three in 1931 and in 1951. There was no significant impact on temperature visible in the record for 1931 or 1951. Like I said, it seems to take a level 5 or 6 to impact global temperature. Pinatubo, a 6 in 1991, is clearly visible in the 1991-3 temperatures. The 5’s and 6’s in 1886, 1902, 1932-3 and 1982 also had a visible effect. I haven’t checked them all, but even some of the 5’s in the past appear not to have had much effect on global temperature.”
Level is not the only factor, latitude is as well. Lower latitude gives far more effect. This means de Chilean and Kamsjatka volcanoes have had virtually nil effect, though the latter was visible in the red skies some time ago.
I do submit the volcanoes are very likely the smallest factor in the relatively coolness of 2008, maybe not even measurably so. A couple of hundreths of degrees perhaps.
It is very hard to distinguish effect from historical volcanoes from other ‘noise’, especially as e.g. from 1886 we have very little information about EN/SO and things like that.
RR kampen :
“Other way round: we are at the cold (Niña) end of a new warming phase”
Wrong. An El Nino or La Nina is fully effective for only a year or two. I am talking about the ~60-year cycle. Check the graph, it’s very clearly visible.
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/GlobalTemperature_PDOPhaseTrends.JPG
“But the oceans were record warm last summer!”
Wrong. Those records were reported only for the surface. The oceans as a whole, as measured by NASA’a Argo floats, are cooling.
“And these series are comparable? How? (I guess you meant 1978, by the way).”
They both operate on anomalies, and line up with each other at the start of the satellite age, which is of course when the two series first overlap. So they are as comparable as they can be in the circumstances. And no I didn’t mean 1978, I really did mean 1878, the year that Adolf Nordenskiöld navigated the Russian Northeast passage, a mere 131 years before those two German container ships.
“2009 is going to bronze medal, mark my words.”
You may be right. We’ll see. But if the oceans don’t start warming again it doesn’t mean anything.
PS. I used the RSS temperature for September 2009 because the Hadcrut3 one hasn’t been published yet.
Re: Mike Jonas (08:49:23) :
Wrong. An El Nino or La Nina is fully effective for only a year or two. I am talking about the ~60-year cycle. Check the graph, it’s very clearly visible.
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/GlobalTemperature_PDOPhaseTrends.JPG
Sorry, misunderstood. The graph shows the PDO superimposed on global warming… If this cooling phase exists (I would like some Fourier analysis on this), the low will be above previous low.
Wrong. Those records were reported only for the surface. The oceans as a whole, as measured by NASA’a Argo floats, are cooling.
Right. Only the SST counts for climate effect.
I wonder if deeper cooling is already the result of increased glacier speed and -melt (knowing cold water sinks)?
So sorry, I can’t finish my reply: have to go.
RR Kampen (08:38:47) :
I did, in fact, corroborate my assertion with the link in my 08:07:04 post. I understand why you pretend it wasn’t there, because it contradicts your belief system.
So who should we believe? You? Or a scientist with a PhD in physics? In fact, the people evading rational discussion are actually those who, like you, can not provide any empirical evidence showing that CO2 controls the temperature — but who continue to make that physically baseless assumption.
Smokey – re CO2 and temperature, this is an interesting graph (I have posted it before so you might have seen it already – and the original idea of doing it was Frank Lansner’s not mine).
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/deltaco2vstemp.jpg
It shows the 12-month change in CO2 concentration (Mauna Loa) against the global temperature (UAH LT). They are just the straight data – for all of the available period – scaled for graphing alongside each other (I don’t have sophisticated graphing tools). No “adjustments”, no manipulation, no mucking around.
The correlation is striking, I am sure you will agree.
The big question is, of course, is the CO2 affecting the temperature or is the temperature affecting CO2?
Well, the answer is in the graph : the 1998 El Nino is clearly visible in both. Since CO2 didn’t cause the El Nino, it couldn’t have caused that temperature spike. So if either of them caused the other, it must have been the temperature that caused the CO2 change.
Mind you, I’m not quite sure exactly what the graph is telling us in a physics sense. It seems to show that atmospheric CO2 concentration can change quite quickly as temperature changes. That seems to be at odds with the “Al Gore” temperature and CO2 charts, where CO2 lagged temperature by 800 years. Someone better than me at the physics (not a climate scientist!) needs to have a look at it.
Ironic that James Hansen is trying to disprove the “800 years” bit, and here I am helping him…and BTW I have found the 800 years difficult to believe too, but so far that’s the evidence.
“RR Kampen (08:38:47) :
“Smokey, you are simply evading rational discussion.
If you throw around remarks you have to corroborate them, be you a ’sceptic’ or none”.
RR Kampen, this is a bridge too far.
We know the properties of CO2.
We know CO2 is not a pollutant.
We know its effect on our climate is insignificant.
We know temperature drives CO2 levels, not the other way around.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4091&linkbox=true
We know there is a Marxist Political Scam to tax and shackle humanity.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/10/copenhagen-treaty-draft-gender.html
We know the UN and the conspiring Governments and Institutions use every
propaganda trick in the book to screw our populations into the scam
(Hitler and Stalin would have been mad from envy if it happened in their time):
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-asian-kids-sue-g8.html
But RR Kampen insists on “a rational discussion”.
I am flabbergasted.
Mike Jonas (09:16:10),
Thanks for that graph. I believe it is similar to this graph, in which CO2 lags temperature by 5 months.
If rising CO2 caused rising global temperatures, this chart would be impossible: click. The fact that there is no correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperature effectively falsifies the CO2=AGW conjecture.
RR Kampen (01:17:23)
Your rushing to conclusions about my convictions is actually astounding. Flabbergasting. Takes my breath away… Didn’t I mention I accept the vast body of evidence outside of that tree – like IPCC accepts a vast body of evidence outside of that tree? Forget the tree. There is VASTLY more evidence of warming. Use it, or discredit it. Concentrating on one tree is never going to let you disprove (A)GW. Never.
A classic re-frame attempt. This poster skirts trolldom. He carefully avoids the issues of stonewalled data, inadequate sample sizing, self-peer review, etc. The problems uncoverd in Briffa aren’t solely about the conclusion – they are about credibility of methods and conduct for the entire AGW campaign.
RR Kampen (01:17:23) :
“Do you live in Holland, or are you from the States telling me – ice skater, fisherman – what the waters in MY country look like??”
I live in Den Haag and have observed the state of the ice and waters over many years.
RR Kampen (09:00:48) : “The graph shows the PDO superimposed on global warming… If this cooling phase exists (I would like some Fourier analysis on this), the low will be above previous low.”
Yes, the graph does show a cycle in sync with the PDO, on a rising trend. Yes, we have to verify that we are indeed in a cooling phase, so if you can get an appropriate analysis done, please do. But it is worth noting that the slope of the rising trend is less than 0.5 deg C per century, whereas the IPCC based their report on a rise of 0.74 (+-0.18) deg C in the 20th century. Much of their claimed rise, which they built into their figure for climate sensitivity, was part of a cycle not the long term trend that they claimed.
Bear in mind also that the sun became more active during the 20th century, so if it becomes less active now we can’t be at all sure that that long term trend will continue.
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/Lean2000.jpg
graph of data in
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
RR Kampen (09:00:48) : “Only the SST counts for climate effect.”
Only the SST affects climate at a point in time. But the point about the ocean is this : the AGW claim is that CO2 traps outgoing radiation thus causing a heat imbalance so that heat builds up around the planet. But the atmosphere at its current temperature is holding only a tiny fraction of the claimed imbalance, so the extra heat has to be going somewhere else. The only possible “somewhere else” is the oceans. But the oceans are not warming, and have failed to warm for longer (5-6 years) than the IPCC models say is possible under AGW (4 years). So the models, and the AGW hypothesis which is based on them, are seriously wrong. NB. This is not the only way in which they are seriously wrong.
RR Kampen (09:00:48) : “I wonder if deeper cooling is already the result of increased glacier speed and -melt (knowing cold water sinks)?”
Over the last several years, the part of the sea-level rise that has been due to melting ice has been about 2.5mm pa.
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf
Given that the average ocean depth is about 3.8km that’s far too little cold water to have a noticeable effect on overall ocean temperature.
RR Kampen (09:00:48) : “So sorry, I can’t finish my reply: have to go.”
The sooner this AGW thing is resolved, the sooner we can all get back to our other lives.
Re: aylamp (12:03:56) :
I live in Den Haag and have observed the state of the ice and waters over many years.
—
Okay.
Would you agree the fact there was virtually no ice in the winter of 2006-2007 was solely due to emission of waste warm water into the canals and lakes?
Would you agree the fact that all spring flowers were blooming at same exceptionally early time in late winter was solely due to that warm water emission?
Would you agree the fact that thermometers registered virtually no frost that winter was due to same?
Would you agree the fact that last winter some skating was possible was due to a reduction of warm water emission?
Re: Ron de Haan (09:22:07) :
I thought this was a forum discussing climate, climate change. In reality, here to, so many counterarguments for (A)GW do not even touch the subject. Marxism??
I prefer to stick with the subject and do not know how to react to your post. No bridge, let alone ‘too far’. We know the properties of CO2. It is a greenhouse gas. Whether it may be called a ‘pollutant’ is an entirely different subject.
Indiana Bones, the data were never stonewalled. Even if McIntyre says it they were never stonewalled. And please reserve the word ‘troll’ for trolls.
Smokey, as an off topic question then: from where did you get your information that I am no scientist and or hold no PhD? I didn’t know all this!
RR Kampen (04:06:38) :
“Re: Ron de Haan (09:22:07) :
I thought this was a forum discussing climate, climate change”.
RR Kampen,
The first link from Norm Kalmanovitch makes the case and effectively debunks the AGW claims:
http://climaterealists.com/?id=4059
and
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4091&linkbox=true
The other links are political indeed but that goes for the entire AGW scam.
That’s what happens if science gets kidnapped by politics.
RR Kampen (01:49:29) :
“Okay.
Would you agree the fact…..”
Please provide with links to the data you are using.
aylamp, http://www.knmi.nl and http://www.nlweer.com.
Of course, our own observations cannot possibly be reliable in any way. From them we would have to believe the elves lowered the freezing point of water.