Global Warming and “The Early Spring” Part II

“Wildlife winces at early spring”
Sure, to refute this argument, you Just need count the corpses of the small animals in a harsh winter: Wildlife loves mild winters.

The weather in my part of the UK has been cold, persistently so, for several months just as the weather has been warm for so many years before that.
But, it’s the persistence of cold rather than the coldness that, to me, seems more noteworthy.

There is no sense of proportion and of very recent climate history in my country anymore, the “we’re all doomed merchants” hold sway and the naysayers and realists are pooh-poohed.
There are a bunch of gloom mongers who have a large following and are treated as demi gods in my country because they are ‘of the earth’ and gardening is like a religion here.
There is no God given correct ‘time’ of year for early flowering plants, but in Britain it used ( since my childhood) to be snow drops and primroses in late Jan to early Feb followed by Crocuses in late Feb early March, then Daffs, Mar – April and Tulips and Bluebells in May, this was the sequence (usual but by no means always) in the North of England.
This natural cycle has been earlier in recent years but then who can argue with mother earth?
We have had in recent times some quite mild winters and very good it has been for the birds, flowers and bugs.
So when BBC gardeners who have the attention span of some garden birds start pontificating on how the planet is changing and gaining considerable traction, I inwardly groan.
But in some people’s small minds, a mild winter is a harbinger of greater and more serious consequences and put a few mild winters together and bingo! Man-made Global Warming.
2009 was quite cold, 2010 was even more so and I find that spring seems to be finding it’s old rhythm quite nicely and we will have bluebells in May as we did in the past~ no panic!

Steven…, in the case of Britain, it should be renamed thus: “The British Urban
Heat Isles…” [BUHI] (The Mother of all Heat Islands)…Here in Sweden, the correlation of cold winters=late springs and mild winters=early springs is not that obvious as
we have SW/W winds predominating…Snowcover here in Solna just NW, 3 km
from Stockholm inner city arrived Dec 14 and in a few hundred sq metres down
“my” hill, Framnäsbacken, “Huvudstafältet” aka Capetown Field, shadowed and
windshielded, there is still 15-20 cm, and 2 cm new snow yesterday that
covered the 4 m high mountains of old snow nearby, when will these monsters melt??
Not very many days into January the evening tabloids started webb questions
“Do you fancy more snow? Alt 1. Yes, I love it Alt 2. No, it’s enough…
Late January: Alt 1 Yes, bring it on Alt 2. No Alt 3. I’ve already emigrated
south…[Between the lines you could read this…But you get the idea] We had
a long winter but only 7-8 days were sunny and cold which is nice, I still
think at 54…

Yep earlier & earlier Springs etc, yawn, yawn! What contemptible arrogance mankind has to think that “nature” is unable to adapt to subtle changes in climate, like it has been doing for millenia! We’re the ones who are failing to adapt, not “nature”. As for the RSPB banging on & on about AGW & CC caused by mankind, causing the demise of so many birds, their habitat, their food supplies, they secretly admitted a little while ago that the demise of many a small bird in & around towns, was the increase in feral cats allowed to go wild by their stupid owners’ failure to look after them properly! Law of nature, too many predators = not enough food!

“When can we expect retractions from The Guardian, BBC and Real Climate?”
You’re kidding of course, right?
I will think that the word ‘retraction’ is unknown in their lexicon …

I put this again:
Spring coming in FInland, described using river Tornionjoki ice melting day from the end of year (red) and sunspot activity (blue) after Maunder minimum:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1278929/jl-ap-tas.jpg
This is quite perfect match. Now it is intresting to see what happens now when sunspots are down. This spring’s ice meltings seem to happen much later than last few years, if weather forecasts for coming 2 weeks hold. Ice is also quite thick because of cold winter.

“… experts believe release of pent-up energy …”
Pent up energy? Eh? Where is it pent up? What kind of energy? Heat energy? Cold energy? Electricity? Where is it stored? What are they talking about?
The sun goes around the other side of the sun and the angle of the earth’s tilt, ~23 degrees, let’s the sun heat the northern instead of the southern hemisphere. How is that “pent” up like a battery?
In the oceans? that’s both cold and warmer, isn’t it?
In the ice? that’s all cold and cold sucks heat to melt, lots of heat.
What the heck are they talking about? Can’t they ever be specific with their slosh stories?

The Earth is on a slow rotisserie as it orbits the sun Sol alternating between heating the northern and southern hemispheres (summer) while heating the other hemisphere not so much (winter).
Do these journalists and alleged scientists forget this basic physics fact? It’s stunning.
Unless the Earth moves closer to the sun, or alters it’s axis angle to 0 degrees, or the atmosphere becomes as thick as Venus, or we nuke everywhere (or something like that), the Arctic will always be below zero celsius in the winter thus there will always be sea ice coverage. The planet would need to warm up like what 30c to 50c or more for there to be no ice at all. If that were to happen we’d really be in Al Gore’s death scenario. Not likely from CO2 though.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
It amazes me how little people even attempt to think.
Now maybe I get stuff wrong but at least I’m willing and able to admit it when I do and learn from the correction and apply it to thinking again.
The Earth is tilted. I’d love to know more about how this fact impacts weather and climate. If Anthony or someone else informed with the depth of knowledge would write an excellent article on that and how said fact impacts “weather” and “long term (ahem) climate” soothsaying, ahem predictions, please do so. I would be grateful and maybe we’d all learn something too.
Heck, do the climate models even take it into account? If so how? How accurate is it modeled? Really?
“Earth’s axial tilt is 23.44°”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt

A few more winters like those we’ve just experienced and they can resurrect and update this piece:
Newsweek, April 28, 1975:

In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant over-all loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

Meanwhile, from AP, comes this latest scare of the day (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100405/ap_on_sc/us_northeast_flooding_climate )

BOSTON – The Northeast is seeing more frequent “extreme precipitation events” in line with global warming predictions, a study shows, including storms like the recent fierce rains whose floodwaters swallowed neighborhoods and businesses across New England.

To balance out all this hype, here’s what we’ve seen this winter in Buffalo — a short snow season that saw measurable snowfall only from 1 Dec 2009 to 28 February 2010, a rare event indeed. Guess we sent all our snow to D.C., Baltimore, & Philly, since we received nearly two feet less snow than normal.

“Pent up energy? Eh? Where is it pent up? What kind of energy? Heat energy? Cold energy? Electricity? Where is it stored? What are they talking about?”
That will be Gaia energy.
I have a tai chi video which talks of how you “feel” lighter and “feel” energized; both of which are true. But then it throws in energy-mass equivalence!

Climate change is coming. At least, political climate change.
Sooner the better too. Perhaps a new government lead by a different party will get off the AGW bandwagon and take a realistic look at the science.

Ralph: Interesting graph. Do you have data for the last 10 years?
Unfortunately no. Here’s the data:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1278929/tj_jaat.XLS
C = melting day from the end of year
And here
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/trends-in-the-ice-breaking-date-in-the-tornio-river-finland
is amazingly stupid conclusions that changes are due greenhouse gases. Simple spline smoothing shows, that changes are mostly driven by solar activity. This would be worth more detailed analysis for those familiar with suitable methods.

Spring – the time of warming days from winter and lengthening day length towards the summer solstice. Biological processes in nearly all organisms (at least those that live on the surface of this earth) are driven by photoperiodism – the precise measure of the number of hours of light versus that of darkness. Nearly all species of plants and animals use photoperiodism to maximise their reproductive output (and hence genetic capital) in the evolutionary process. To get ahead of the game, use photoperiodism as the clue for ‘good times ahead’ to drive the reproductive effort to produce offspring just when the maximum level of a food source will be available to the parent to feed the offspring. Do this by using the clue of lengthening day length to time your reproductive effort to maximise the survival of your offspring for future generations. But the genetics of photoperiodism is not necessarily temperature compensated, so a lengthening photoperiod combined with an ‘unusual’ increase in temperature can drive the reproductive effort to occur earlier than normal based on lengthening day length alone. However, this can increase your reproductive output for that (and other) seasons – meaning that you are potentially the big evolutionary winner and will inherit the earth. Such is Darwinism. It is beneficial that you breed earlier as most animals/plants will not breed that much longer as they eventually enter a photorefractory state and stop breeding – and this is not temperature compensated so the reproductive effort is terminated by a critical day length (for example late spring or summer) to allow the adult to recoup its energy requirements to survive the next bout of winter (or energy limitation) to allow it to breed in the next season (basically it is all about life long reproductive output). OK, the point is, that an earlier warmer spring means that the majority of spring breeders are benefited in evolutionary terms, not penalised. In short, bring it on for earlier warmer springs – it is the long harsh winters and late springs that will do you and your offspring in, but in the meantime you have potentially left sufficient more offspring behind to be ahead of your competitors. During periods of early springs (whatever the cause) results in major long term evolutionary impacts that take advantage – i.e. the early bird catches the worm. OK, this is pretty way-of-the-mark for the typical meteorological thread of this group but life is all about evolution and (at least in temperate climes) early springs mean good things for your reproductive output (talking non-homids here) and ones long term ‘genetic’ survival.

@ Tom W (01:11:40)
If we “cherry-pick” enough regions of the earth then we eventually approach a global data set, right? Okay, my contribution to the cherry basket are Russia and Siberia:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1260132/Russian-weatherman-strikes-blow-climate-change-lobby-announcing-winter-Siberia-coldest-record.html
“‘The winter of 2009-10 was one of the most severe in European part of Russia for more than 30 years, and in Siberia it was perhaps the record breaking coldest ever,’ said Dr Alexander Frolov, head of state meteorological service Rosgidromet.”
“Mr Frolov also offered bad news for Russians hoping for a speedy respite from the long winter.
‘We can officially say that beginning of the spring in Russia is postponed for another seven to 10 days,’ he warned.”
“Climate change adherents say the planet is warming due to man-made factors but Russian expert Professor Arkady Tishkov said yesterday that Siberia and the world are in fact getting colder.
‘From a scientific point of view, talk about increasing average temperatures on earth of several degrees are absurd,’ he said.
‘Of course we can’t say that global warming is a myth and falsification. In many regions of planet the temperature is higher than expected because of human impact.
‘But the climate system of the planet is changing according to different cycles – from several years to thousand of years.
‘From the scientific point of view, in terms of large scale climate cycles, we are in a period of cooling.”

The Met Office have just announced that March was half a degree C warmer than ‘normal’. In fact, March was half a degree cooler than an average of the past 10 years – which is more ‘normal’ than a baseline. February was cooler, January was cooler, 2009 was cooler, and 2008 was cooler.

With the record cold AO affecting the record cold winter weather in Europe and Asia, I went back to see how the negative AO affected the weather for the following spring and summer.
AO 1950-2009 [60 years]
Number of winters DEC, JAN, FEB AO all negative , 18 or 30%
Of the 18 all negative AO winter, 11 or 61% went negative to March as well[Indication of a cool spring?]
Of the 18 all negative AO winter, 13 or 72 % had negative months into the spring and summer [Indication of cool year?]
Regionally, UK and Europe could have a cool spring, summer and the year if historical patterns repeat. I notice that a negative AO although much less negative is still continuing into April as in the past.

Vukcevic[02:58:06]
Your graph well illustrates how spring tempertaures dropped during past 20-30 year cool climate cycles[ see 1900-1920’s and again 1960-1980’s]. Sign of things to come ?

And the baby seals are struggling! (this year in the Gulf of St Lawrence):
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/confusion-at-the-faz-weather-is-climate/

Tom W (00:45:13) :
Easter snow, 2008
Sleet, snow and storms yesterday made it one of the most miserable Easter weekends in years – with more bad weather to come.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/23/weather
October snow 2008
Parts of south-east England had more than an inch of snow last night while London experienced its first October snowfall in more than 70 years as winter conditions arrived early.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/29/weather-london
2008-2009 Winter
Coldest winter in UK for 13 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7921230.stm
2009-2010 winter
Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6921281/Britain-facing-one-of-the-coldest-winters-in-100-years-experts-predict.html

I vote for a late spring. I suffer from oak pollen alligeries and the longer the winter the longer I’m allegery free. Then there is rageweed season if the summer is longer the ragweed season is longer. I’m ready for cooler temps.

Along the Front Range, Spring seems to be running at least four weeks late – as we are just starting to see the first Crocus buds. Some years we get them in February.

Tom W (05:06:12) :
Jimbo (04:29:27) : More signs of global warming!
Apparently Jimbo thinks
the UK = the globe.
I expect those who know it occupies less than 1/10th of 1 % of the surface of the Earth may find that difficult to swallow.
————————-
Reply:
Oh really? And how about Russia and Siberia in the post just prior to yours? Do they also constitute a mere fraction of the earth’s surface?
Your denial is beyond that famous river in Africa.

It’s about this time of the year this Texan starts paying attention to the Alaskan
http://www.nenanaakiceclassic.com
where they had a “very mild winter, with temperates only reaching -40 degrees for 2 days and average temperatures for the rest of the winter ranging between 45 degrees and -35 degrees.”
Ticket sales for their contest ended April 5th, a contest to predict when exactly the ice will break at a particular railroad bridge. The contest began in 1917.
(They must be redoing the website, as parts of it seem to give me a 404 error)

The bipolar bears can’t decide if they like hot or cold.
I am tired of this record setting long cold and wet winter.

The UK is only a tiny portion of the Northern Hemisphere but as I look out of my study window there are no leaves on the London planes and silver birches. The buds look as if they might open next week if the warmer weather that started today continues. In Richmond Park none of the 1,000 or so oaks and other majestic trees are yet in leaf no matter that on some reckonings we are already nearly six weeks into spring.
Less than a week ago parts of Cumberland suffered a snowstorm of more than 18 inches and the “unseasonal” snow in Southern Scotland resulted in at least one death.
However we have been reassured that this year we really will have a “barbecue summer”. Perhaps we will and perhaps we won’t because the weather still does not understand that it must behave as climate models say it should.

England was cold this winter, all right, but posting data from a single island is meaningless.
Timing of the onset of spring only means something on a global scale. If this task hasn’t been taken on, I’ll look around a bit myself. All of the studies that I have seen demonstrate substantially earlier spring arrival in the last 20 years, especially in the Arctic.
I look forward to your posting the global data after I find it.

Tom W (07:05:45) :
All of your hot air is not going to speed up the arrival of Spring.

Steve Goddard (06:15:55) :
Cherry-pick, cherry pick, cherry-pick
Sorry Steve I have a bad back and am losing interest in cherry picking.

“pwl (01:39:34) :
““Climate change is not something that is happening a million miles away – it is going on in our own back gardens,” said nature presenter Bill Oddie.”
I hate to inform Bill Oddie but there’s really nothing of anything a million miles away other than the empty cold vacuum of space ”
That empty cold vacuum had also established itself in Bill Oddie’s head – even the BBC was forced to drop him for his excruciatingly vacuous, emetic, anthropomorphic TV utterances last year. Even his fellow presenters were embarrassed – no mean feat considering their bunny hugging green credentials and demonstrable loss of a grip on reality.
Unfortunately a high proportion of my countrymen are said to have enjoyed the programme and even more unfortunately will be allowed to vote on May 6th……..
Mean while, here on the Scottish Solway we have our heating on, despite my wife’s Aberdeenshire origins!

Xi Chin (05:34:57) :
“I like this website for its content, but some of the articles are written in a very poor way. Why not raise the standatd a bit? ” …”I mean grammer (sic) and suggestions”
Funny. Hmmm – Would that include spelling as well ?
; )

We did get an early Spring here in Western Washington. The opposite of last year, when locals were lamenting the late Tulip blooms due to extended cold.
There is no global anything going on. Warm and cool spots just get pushed around the planet by winds and oceans, like they always have. Sometimes those warm and cool spots are centered over areas where there are lots of thermometers and people go nuts.
It’s just so incredibly silly.

Tom W (06:47:44) :
Oh really? And how about the ENTIRE Southern Hemisphere which in 2009 was the hottest since the late 1800’s.
Oh, really? And your basis for claiming we knew the temperature over the ENTIRE Southern Hemisphere back before there were weather satellites is…?
I could play this silly game all day but since it’s a complete waste of time. I won’t.
Promises, promises.

Tom W (05:06:12) :
Jimbo (04:29:27) : More signs of global warming!
Apparently Jimbo thinks
the UK = the globe.

Thanks Tom for being a superb mind reader!!
Read these:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/why-i-am-an-anthropogenic-global-warming-sceptic-michael-hammer/
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/12/should-you-be-global-warming-skeptic.html
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/09/14-reasons-why-anthropogenic-global.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Sorry Steve you wouldn’t make a good global warming alarmist, you just don’t get that sun and snow are proof of global warming, just like a man made camp fire is proof the whole forest is about to burn down, well thats what the forest scientist/warden told me as he also reminded me that i had to pay him all my money to look after said forest (smelling of firer starter fluid).

Anyone who goes camping on May long weekend will tell you it gets colder every year. I’m still waiting for a nice weekend like the one i had 10 years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8592408.stm

Monday, 29 March 2010
Struggling to survive Mongolia’s freezing winter
In Mongolia, what aid agencies are calling a slowly unfolding disaster is underway as extreme cold continues to devastate nomadic herder communities. As the BBC’s Chris Hogg reports, about 10% of the country’s livestock has perished and thousands of families have lost everything.

Bill Tuttle (08:05:05) : “AGW’s basic premise — that we’re heading for runaway heating — is *based* on forecasts.”
7 day weather forecasts? Nope.

I would have expected a more complete statistical analysis that spring is not on average starting earlier. Many of the statements you cite (not all) are based on statistical studies over long time periods which are not refuted by one data point.

“Oh, really? And your basis for claiming we knew the temperature over the ENTIRE Southern Hemisphere back before there were weather satellites is…?”
Just as it is not necessary to poll an entire country to get a fairly accurate estimate of voters intensions, it is also not necessary to know the temperature over an entire hemisphere to get a good estimate of the hemispheric temperature. This of course involves being careful…cherry pickers need not apply.

All I can say, is that at the beginning of November last year, I started splitting logs for our wood burner. This weekend, Easter, and the first weekend in April, I’m still splitting logs! Last Easter, I was relaxing with a beer in the garden!

Another reminder … If it does trend warmer for several decades, and even if we gained 2 degrees… someone explain to me again why this is a bad thing?
We just had a mild winter and warm summer here in the last year in the northwest. It was FANTASTIC!
Ice “melt” won’t be that dramatic. Seasons will be longer, with crops more bountiful. We know now that storms won’t be much different. We would need to adapt, manage water resources carefully. Polar bears will sunbathe. Where’s the crisis again?
I also recall Indur golanky’s report showing almost 20% greater mortality in winter than summer.
All AGW alarmism attempts to paint some dark outcome of a warmer earth.
To be sure, there would be winners and losers. But all alarmist references are negative, when in fact, a little warmer is better for (nearly) all living things.

Steve Goddard (07:56:01) :
Tom W (07:05:45) :
The winter of 2008-2009 was extremely cold in the UK. I wrote several articles about that last year.
I haven’t denied that.
Perhaps you should read them
If the issue were the local UK climate I would. It’s about global warming however and since you seem intent on cherry-picking I won’t.
rather than drawing conclusions from one sentence you misquoted out of context?
My 07:05:45 post didn’t quote you, so I have no idea what you are on about.

Rmember the menace of droughts in the amazon basin?
How does this seem? …FLOODS INSTEAD, AL BABY!!:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=a2f2YPa.9tVw

Tom W (10:01:22) :
Just as it is not necessary to poll an entire country to get a fairly accurate estimate of voters intensions, it is also not necessary to know the temperature over an entire hemisphere to get a good estimate of the hemispheric temperature.
“Dewey Defeats Truman” comes to mind. And you didn’t say the temperature in the Southern Hemisphere in 2009 was higher than that which was *estimated* since the 1880s, you said it higher than the temperature for the entire SH — and, considering there was only random sampling of both the air and water temps in random locations which *didn’t* include Antarctica, we return to my original question: how do you determine the *actual* temperature of an entire hemisphere when you don’t have the assets to measure it?

I had a lovely early spring here. Positive proof of global warming. Of course last year when we stayed below freezing throughout all of April with the lakes frozen over well into May that was just weather.
Do I have that right?
I am so glad someone else is having a cold year this year. We had two years of absolutely brutal springs I needed a nice one
Do I have that right?

Smokey (11:01:45) :
Bill Tuttle (10:57:17),
See post @10:56:00.
You lose.
You got to play while I got stuck in moderation! Not fair!
I need to reclaim the language of democracy and
Oh. Wrong thread. Never mind.

Bill Tuttle (10:46:27) : “Dewey Defeats Truman” comes to mind. ”
Sure there is always a chance that error is large. The odds however favour small error. Without additional evidence it would be foolish to assume otherwise
“considering there was only random sampling of both the air and water temps in random locations which *didn’t* include Antarctica,”
Read this and get back to me
hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf

No apology necessary — no harm, no foul. I’d already figured it for a misunderstanding.

Tom W (10:01:22) :
“Just as it is not necessary to poll an entire country to get a fairly accurate estimate of voters intensions, it is also not necessary to know the temperature over an entire hemisphere to get a good estimate of the hemispheric temperature. This of course involves being careful…cherry pickers need not apply.”

This reminds me of Mann / Bristlecones and Briffa Yamal. Sample and smear accross the board :0) If you think linking to one article means you have ‘won’ the debate then you must be pretty new to WUWT.

Steve Goddard (11:37:02) : Tom W (10:48:53) :
230 glaciers in the Himalayas are growing. The IPCC says they will all be gone by 2035.
That was Working Group II. Working Group I, the scientific committee, said no such thing.
Here is a math problem for you. How long will it take for a glacier that is growing to disappear? Those IPCC scientists are first rate, if you consider failing 3rd grade math to be acceptable.
I guess that’s why they weren’t on the scientific committee.

Tom W (10:48:53) :
Thomas Mueller says
Continued fossil fuel consumption will continue to raise ocean acidity levels to as much as 150 per cent the preindustrial level over the next century and a half. As a result, marine ecosystems will collapse in our lifetime because of ocean acidification.
When plankton, krill, crustaceans and mollusks vanish as their calcium carbonate shells dissipate, so too will the food web that sustains marine ecosystems globall
Unfortunately Mueller has little understanding of the Kolmogorov complexity of biological systems eg Kolmogorov, A. N., I.G. Petrovskii, and N.S. Piskunov
A Study of the Equations of Diffusion Accompanied by an Increase in the Amount of Matter, and Its Application to a Biological Problem 1937
Here there is a significant constraint embedded in the Biology this is called evolution and is well understood eg Darwin 1856.
A good example is Hendricks and Rickaby
Abstract. An urgent question for future climate, in light of
increased burning of fossil fuels, is the temperature sensitivity
of the climate system to atmospheric carbon dioxide
(pCO2). To date, no direct proxy for past levels of pCO2 exists
beyond the reach of the polar ice core records. We propose
a new methodology for placing a constraint on pCO2
over the Cenozoic based on the physiological plasticity of
extant coccolithophores. Specifically, our premise is that the
contrasting calcification tolerance1 of various extant species
of coccolithophore to raised pCO2 reflects an “evolutionary
memory” of past atmospheric composition. The different
times of evolution of certain morphospecies allows an upper
constraint of past pCO2 to be placed on Cenozoic timeslices.
Further, our hypothesis has implications for the response of
marine calcifiers to ocean acidification. Geologically “ancient”
species, which have survived large changes in ocean
chemistry, are likely more resilient to predicted acidification.
In terms of underlying genetic mechanisms, currently, little
is known about genetic controls on calcification (e.g.
Marsh, 2003; Nguyen et al., 2005), or the detailed photosynthetic
mechanism of coccolithophores. Coupling of calcification
with species-specific Rubisco specificity provides
a tangible means to preserve the CO2/O2 composition at the
time of origin of photosynthetic phyla (Giordano et al., 2005;
Tcherkez et al., 2006). The preservation of calcification ability
at high pCO2 in C. pelagicus may occur through genetic
redundancy (Wagner, 1999), or variance in genetic expression
whilst the adaptation of E. huxleyi and C. leptoporus to
the modern low pCO2 niche could be associated with gene
inactivation of pathways associated with high pCO2 (Hittinger
et al., 2004). The high proportion of duplicate genes
within plant and algae genomes is indicative of a high rate
of retention of duplicate genes (Lynch and Connery, 2000).
Gene duplications contribute to the establishment of new
gene functions, and may underlie the origin of evolutionary
novelty. Duplicate genes can exist stably in a partially redundant
state over a protracted evolutionary period (Moore
and Purugganan, 2005). A half-life to silencing and loss of
a plant gene duplicate is estimated at 23.4 million years such
that remnant duplicate genes, which can be reactivated by
environmental conditions to encode calcification within coccolithophores
under “ancestral” conditions representative of
60 Ma, appears reasonable.

Tom W (11:57:12) :
Jimbo (11:39:05) : If you think linking to one article means you have ‘won’ the debate then you must be pretty new to WUWT.
I fear you are right. Scientific arguments seem to have little impact here.
___________________________________
Oh I don’t know some people have come in here with lots of ideas with data to back them up and have made rather strong impressions.
Science is not about beliefs and opinions, it’s about ideas and data, concepts about correlations that have substantive mechanisms as their inner working that can be verified and when applied actually generate forecasts that DO WORK!
Have you brought any of those with you today?

CodeTech (12:21:30) : We can’t help it if you refuse to look at them, and instead rely on inaccurate alarmist claptrap…
Speaking of claptrap it is typical of climate discombobulators* to make vague unsubstantiated claims about ‘alarmist claptrap’ without ever even identifying it.
*Since won’t allow me to use the ‘d’ word even though they can freely use the ‘a’ word, this will have to do.

Oh I don’t know some people have come in here with lots of ideas with data to back them up and have made rather strong impressions.
Really? Tell me about it. All I’ve seen is a lot of Gore bashing, unsubstantiated claims and cherry-picking.

So you english men are not going to have your “Estro” season this year. Kind of a “delayed love affaire” ☺

“Have you brought any of those with you today?”
Let me bring you this.
Only this week, the president of the Royal Society of London Martin Rees on a visit to Australia told us once more that mainstream science is in agreement; climate is changing, it’s due to us and we need to worry. But why is this attitude, confirmed by leaders of academies and researchers in the field, so much disputed by so-called sceptics? Let me take you to a symposium set up by the American Association for the Advancement of Science especially to illuminate this quandary with facts. Five speakers, and the first is Riley Dunlap from Oklahoma State University, on science books.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2859986.htm

Steve Goddard (10:00:18) :
It is one year of late blooming. There have been more years of early blooming. The trend is towards earlier although late can still happen. All you are doing is pointing out variation around a long-term trend, which to me, seems irrelevant and pointless.
Disprove the long-term trend towards earlier or this is a useless exercise.

Tom W (11:24:16) :
No matter what links you supply, the fact is that there was not a single permanent weather station in Antarctica before 1957. You never wondered why all the illustrations in that paper you linked to applied to 1969?

AndrewP (14:07:05) :
Winter in the UK was coldest since 1963, and coldest in northern Scotland on record. Last winter was coldest in 13 years.
“Long-term trend” is often defined as climate types as “go back far enough to catch the upswing, but not far enough to catch the last downswing.”
Like in Greenland, where many climate scientists believe that time began in 1980, because the earlier years don’t work with CAGW theory.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Tom W (13:48:57) :
“Have you brought any of those with you today?”
Let me bring you this.
Only this week, the president of the Royal Society of London Martin Rees on a visit to Australia told us once more that mainstream science is in agreement; climate is changing, it’s due to us and we need to worry…

See, Tom, this is claptrap. Once more, an appeal to authority.
Mainstream science is NOT in agreement. That’s an outright lie. But you seem to believe it.
Climate is NOT changing or even varying outside of previously seen norms. That’s an outright lie. But you seem to believe it.
It’s not due to us, because it’s not happening. We don’t need to worry because nothing out of the ordinary is happening.
But that won’t work, will it Tom? Because in your head that simply makes me a “denier” and you can safely ignore me. Isn’t that right? Because your Martin Rees is an “authority”, and you are appealing to authority. A valid debating tactic, if you don’t actually care about science or finding out the truth about something… if your only goal is to debate and mock those who disagree with your findings.
But the majority of regulars here on WUWT are definitely interested in finding out the truth about things, are very interested in the SCIENCE as opposed to the politics. So your feeble reply is valueless.
But do, please, try again. You are, unintentionally I’m sure, entertaining in your own way.

tty (14:15:03) : No matter what links you supply, the fact is that there was not a single permanent weather station in Antarctica before 1957.
Which is why there are larger error bars over land earlier on (fig. 12). Had you read the paper you would have learned that the error is not fatal however since it is less than the observed warming signal. This is because
a) Antarctica represents only about 5% of the area of the Southern Hemisphere and
b) 80% of the southern hemisphere is ocean (vs 60% in the northern hemisphere)
The lack of observations in the southern hemisphere is therefore partially compensated by the fact that the surface air temperatures has a much smaller spatial and temporal variability over the ocean than over land and is therefore easier to estimate.
You never wondered why all the illustrations in that paper you linked to applied to 1969?
Actually Figs 10 through 17 go back to the mid to late 1800’s. Astonishing how often climate discombobulators mess up simple facts. If I didn’t know better I think it was deliberate.

CodeTech (15:21:57) :Mainstream science is NOT in agreement.
Nonsense. EVERY national science academy has issued a statement on global warming and none deny the influence of humans. The same is true of every related professional society.
The usual climate discombobulator argument:
They begin by claiming there is no consensus and when that is shown to be false they retreat to the claim that consensus is irrelevant.

P Wilson (17:27:01) : “the usual sententious nonsense. we can safely ignore climate prognostications from the Royal Society, or any other official institution that decrees an edict as a tablet of stone thrown from above. ”
Far be it from me to infringe on you democratic right to ignore science or wear a loincloth.

Tom W (16:17:34) :
The UK Met Office has botched one long term forecast after another – always on the high side – and no one takes them seriously any more – not even The Guardian. But they do argue the consensus viewpoint, which should make you happy.
When scientific organisations issue statements of consensus that fly in the face of observational evidence, all they do is destroy their own credibility.

Tom W (17:55:28) :
Fact: According to CRU’s Phil Jones, temperatures have not increased since 1995. Your Nobel Laureate friends can relax. Their fears appear to be unfounded.
What most people fail to understand is that physics only calls for a 1C rise with a doubling of CO2. The catastrophic projections are based on some extremely shaky theory of positive feedbacks, that has little or no support in observational evidence.

Tom W
Most of these societies have been infiltrated with activists obtaining back door appointments.

Tom W (16:17:34) : there is no consensus and …and … consensus is irrelevant
Yes.

Tom W (16:17:34) :
CodeTech (15:21:57) :Mainstream science is NOT in agreement.
Nonsense. EVERY national science academy has issued a statement on global warming and none deny the influence of humans. The same is true of every related professional society.
The usual climate discombobulator argument:
They begin by claiming there is no consensus and when that is shown to be false they retreat to the claim that consensus is irrelevant.

Sorry tom, but that’s just retarded.
So are you in agreement with everything said on your behalf? Did President Bush speak for you? Or Paul Martin or Chretien or Blair or whoever was your alleged leader? Really? Always? Accurately?
You’ve now officially jumped the shark.

Steve Goddard (18:09:31) :
In fact Jones found a warming of .12 C per decade with a confidence level slightly below 95%, a result far from your claim that he found no warming.
Who exactly is misrepresenting the science here?

Steve Goddard (20:56:54) :
Tom W
Yes, Had-Crut shows temperatures warming out of control.
Let’s review.
Right after it was noted that the statistical significance of a warming trend DECREASES with the length of the interval used and that 1995-2009 was too short to obtain 95% confidence. What does Steve do in addition to cherry-picking the starting point 1998? He DECREASES the length of the interval even more to make it even less statistically significant.

Tom W (21:05:27) :
No, what I showed you is that any warming that occurred after 1995 occurred prior to 1998 – and there hasn’t been any since.
Some trend.

“i don’t follow your reasoning. Rephrased: There’s very little reasoning. A great deal of invective and vituperation. That is: Nothing but attitude and arrogance.”
No big deal. People who hold strong opinions on subjects they know nothing about often claim those who know something are ‘arrogant.’

Tom W (21:20:05) :
Quite so. Its no big deal. On the other hand, Alice might have thought the Queen of Hearts as fairly arrogant. Oh! But then what did the lion think of the Ice Queen?
Its time to close the wardrobe door.

Steve Goddard (14:45:18) :
The UK has been warming for 100 years. Is that far enough back for you? 2 cold SEASONS doesn’t mean diddly squat.

BBC environmental commentator, Richard Black, seems to have
missed the three week late bluebell and other plants advisory.
His posting of 7 April 2010 covers a report by Mr. Richard
Smithers of the Woodland Trust:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8606406.stm
and describes their data acquisition and processing technique thusly:

“Mr Smithers’ team developed a technique for blending fragmented records in a way that takes account of where in the UK the records came from, what length of time they cover, and the differences between the flowering times of different species, from the snowdrops of early Spring to the ivy of Autumn.”

They’ve arrived at a fomula derived from these multiple-source observations that essentially says that for every 1 degree
centigrade in increased average temperature (based on the
Central England Temperature Record) you’ll get plants blooming
five days earlier than they did 30 years ago.
Thus, 2.0+ degrees increase = 11 days “earlier”.
Bibbity, bobbity, boo. Climate science is so simple !

The opinion piece that Tom W linked to, claiming that it was the coup de grace for CAGW scepticism, was, in fact, so pathetically (even laughably) weak that I became instantly suspicious that he must actually have come here to satirize the CAGW side of the argument. And I still can’t decide if that is really the case or if rather he is just another sophist troll who cares nothing for truth but only for massaging his own bloated ego in public.

Censorship? Quite common on denier boards.
I’m outta here.

Steve Goddard (16:19:17) :
Tom W (09:06:51) :
After dominating the board for two days, you invoke the censorship defense and check out.

Did you expect different? And I don’t mean that even in a sarcastic manner… one day someone will troll around WUWT and actually have logical arguments that are reasonable.
Alas, that day has not yet arrived.
Meanwhile their ad homs and mocking tone combined with shocking ignorance are actually amusing to some of us. They’re just so certain that they are right. It really doesn’t occur to them that most of us used to argue for cAGW too, until we paid attention…

Average global temperatures for at least 114 years and counting are accurately calculated with a fairly simple equation at http://sc25.com/attachments/database/corroborationofnaturalclimatechange.pdf . There is no significant influence from change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas.

Tom W
The Science Show on the ABC here in Oz. Well, there you go. Look at the list of usual suspects, including the presenter. It’s not worth two bob as an unbiassed statement of the position.
I’m a graduate Chemical Engineer. I’m also a strong DENIER of any significant AGW and a less strong denier of any GW.
How dare you imply that I have taken that position because I’m a scientific ignoramus.
Wash your mouth out with strong soap.