Guest post by Thomas Fuller
Before I start, I’d like to remind readers that as a guest poster, the opinions I voice here are not those of Anthony Watts, and should not be taken as having been endorsed by Watts Up With That.
I am going to propose an idea based on my position as a Lukewarmer regarding climate change. I fully expect to get a lot of criticism from commenters here, and I welcome it. My idea is new (at least to me), and if it is a good idea it will be sharpened by your criticism–and of course, if it is rubbish, best to know quickly, right?
I think the debate on climate change needs some new ideas and criticism too. So blast away–but please bring your A game. I neither need nor want to see the equivalent of ‘you suck, dude.’
Families, businesses and yes, even governments, need to make plans for the future. Those plans used to include assumptions about the physical environment, although most of those assumptions were passive acceptance of the status quo. However, it is now difficult to make assumptions because various theories of climate change and its effects have people wondering if their homes will be threatened by sea level rise, drought, hurricanes or floods.
Because of the competing number of possible futures (the IPCC has many scenarios and many more have been pulled from the science fiction rack and offered up to us), people are somewhat paralyzed by too many choices. I think it is time to recognize that all of use engaged in the debate about climate change are not doing the rest of the world any favors. We are making their life more difficult because they cannot make plans with any confidence.
If there is one dataset that I trust regarding the Earth’s climate, it is the measurement of atmospheric concentrations of CO2. It has been freely available for examination, it is replicated by measurements in more than one site, and in my mind survived criticism from people such as the late Ernst Beck. I trust the numbers.
The numbers show that concentrations of CO2 were 315 ppm in 1958, when Mauna Loa started measuring. Concentrations now are 390 ppm. That is a rise of 19%. The central question in climate change is, ‘What is the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2?’ Is the atmosphere easily influenced by CO2, producing more water vapor and adding to temperature rise, or is the atmosphere largely indifferent? Despite protestations from both sides, the honest answer is we don’t know now, and we are not likely to know for another 30 years.
Temperatures appear to have risen globally, although the accuracy of the data is not yet fully determined. The rise since 1958 appears to be about 0.5 degrees Celsius.
If these were the only statistics available to us, we would quickly conclude that the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to all human-related activities might well be 2.5 degrees Celsius. This would lead to the supposition that, if concentrations of CO2 rise to about 600 ppm, which certainly seems possible, that the Earth’s temperature will rise about another 2 degrees C. Since it’s based on measurement of temperatures, it can be presumed to include all the effects we are having on temperatures, not just CO2.
And I am arguing, no–proposing, that we do exactly that. Attempts to refine models and measurements have been unsuccessful and have served to heighten suspicion and muddy the debate. I have seen very credible arguments for sensitivities that are both higher and lower, but these arguments are based on data or models that have much higher levels of uncertainty associated with them, ranging from differing ways of measuring tropospheric temperatures to analysis of varves from Finnish lakes.
I don’t see undisputed data that will allow us to do better than the 40 years of good data we have now. So I think we should provide a ‘rough and ready’ estimate of 2 degrees C climate change this century to the public, business and politicians, so they can start making plans for the future.
It should obviously come with an asterisk and error bars, and should be presented as ‘crude, but the best we can really do at this time.’ Much like earlier and simpler climate models have often done better in handling projections of future climate, our rougher and cruder metrics may serve us better for now.
We need to stop throwing sci-fi fantasies out as plausible outcomes. We need to provide a range of outcomes based on measurements that we trust.
We also need not to be distracted by elements of the debate that have only served a political purpose. Current temperatures are not unprecedented. There was a MWP and a LIA. Sea level is rising at 3 mm per year. The ice caps are not going to disappear this millenium.
None of that really matters. Temperatures are rising, and more quickly than they have often in the past. (Yes, they have risen this quickly on occasion.) It is the speed of change and the numbers of people those changes will affect that are actually of more concern than the total temperature rise. The people in developing countries are actually more vulnerable than the last time there was a big quick rise–hunter gatherers didn’t have homes and could just move out of harm’s way, and they were few enough in number that they would not have been labeled ‘climate refugees.’
So, I call for all those involved in the climate debate to throw down their weapons, embrace this practical solution as being of use to the rest of the world, climb aboard the Peace Train and sing Kumbaya. Right.
No, have a look at this–tell me if it’s remotely possible that the skeptic community could sacrifice its current temporary, but very real advantage in the debate and agree that a rough metric that acknowledges warming but puts sane boundaries on it would be of use to the rest of the world.
Again, I’d like to thank readers who have made it this far for listening to a different side of the debate in a forum where you are more comfortable seeing the failings of your opponents exposed. If you find the gaping flaw in my logic, my idea can die quickly, if not quietly. If you see merit in my proposal, any indication of such would be warmly welcomed.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The rise since 1958 appears to be about 0.5 degrees Celsius.”
And that has happened many times throughout the holocene period.
The increase in temperatures also coincidenced with the grand solar maximum that lasted for decades, and is thought to be the strongest solar cycles on average since beginning of holocene.
I find it hard to believe that anyone at this site, much less a guest poster, could make the simplistic connection between CO2 rise and temperature rise. Have we not shown that at least half of that rise is courtesy of “adjustments?”
CO2 has risen steadily. Temperature has jumped and dipped. What connection?
What has matched the CO2 rise is world population, both steadily upward. We have twice the population that we had in 1958. We have four times that of a hundred years ago. If we must jump to conclusions, surely that would be the connection.
We have spent ten$ of billion$ and wasted untold hours of scientists’ time trying to make the CO2 connection, and gotten ambivalent results. Maybe that means there isn’t a connection, hmm? Ask Michelson, Morley, and Einstein about that.
One thing we do know for certain is that every proposed “solution” to this imaginary problem will hurt many people.
thomaswfuller says:
October 20, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Hi again, all,
Keep ‘em coming–I greatly appreciate the feedback. Tallbloke, what on earth makes you think I believe all the recent rise is due to CO2? (I don’t–but it’s possible I expressed myself poorly.) Even the IPCC doesn’t think that.
===========================
Possibly for the same reason I did. Your statements about temperature rise over the period 1958 – present imply that you are making that assumption. especially given your statement about the 2C rise in temps due to a 2x increase in CO2.
I think I’m yet to comment here at WUWT, so here’s my first.
I cant help but echo what Bruce is thinking.
“If the Vostok ice cores suggest that our interglacial will come to end end and plunge us into the next regularly scheduled ice age, should we not do everything possible to keep the planet warm and delay the next ice age?”
Thomas, as much as I find myself disagreeing with some of your post, if not most, I do enjoy reading what you have to say.
I find it difficult to believe anyone who doesn’t have a degree of uncertainty, especially if that person believes that they are 100% correct and everyone else is wrong.
I’m leaning more towards the possibility of everything been frozen over in 10k years. This will be a much bigger issue for mankind then the “dangers” of a 2 degree warming in the next 100 years.
Wouldn’t the extra warmth open up more farming land in the higher and lower latitudes anyway?
I little bit of climate variability is nothing to be afraid of.
Its the LONG term cyclical changes in our planet that should “fear” if anything.
But I think we got a few thousand years to figure this out anyway.
Allowing governments to plan for events more than 20 years in advance is foolishness, as some have already pointed out.
One exception may be the national debt.
We can expect it to be with us for a long time now.
Wow… This topic got a “few” comments.
I’m preparing for 20-30 years of mildly cooling temperatures. If you need to plan beyond that, I have no clue. Without the TOB (time of observation) adjustments and the 1200km smoothing, the temperature record is quite flat. A good 60yr oscillation, but nothing to fret about. If the past holds any clue about the future, we’re over the hump on the current climate wave, and due for a gentle slide down.
I did a workup of the raw, unadjusted land temperature measurements shortly after ClimateGate. The data is messy, noisy, and a bit of a bugger to deal with. I merged stations within each 1×1° of latitude & longitude, and kept any grid point that had max/min temperature data for more than 240 days of the year, and sufficient data in each year since 1900. Any temp above 100°C or below -100°C was tossed (probably should have clipped at 99, since 999.9 was used to indicate missing values, and 99.9 is an easy typo).
@vukcevic”
vukcevic says:
October 20, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Perhaps you should take a good look at this graph, and than look into CO2 hypothesis again.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.htm”
Stations in northern norway and on svalbard show about the same. Actually some parts of northern norway was actually warmer in the 30-40s.
Summer temps in a town in northern norway: http://eklima.met.no/yr/trend/TAMA_S97251_Season_650_NO.jpg
Yearly trend: http://eklima.met.no/yr/trend/TAMA_S97251_Year_650_NO.jpg
Tom, where did the 2C rise come from, everyone agrees that a doubling of CO2 will cause a rise in temperature of 1.2C, or thereabouts, sceptics as well as alarmists. It comes from the stefan-boltzmann black body equation and is the best we have to forecast the change in temperature with an increase in CO2 forcing. All the other catastrophic scenarios assume an increase in positive feedback caused by increased water vapour. An interesting theory which, doesn’t seem to have attracted much effort to quantify its effect. For instance if increased CO2 causes increased water vapour we should be seeing the effects of this positive feedback right now shouldn’t we? Wwe have increased CO2 so shouldn’t we have increased water vapour concomitant in some mathematical way with the increase in CO2?
Thomas Fuller.
You’ve done some great posts in the past, but this one sucks.
You request that AGW skeptics embrace the reality that the world has warmed and place sane limits on that warming that will be of use to the rest of the world.
From this I assume you want to use those limits (reasonable estimates on the level of warming I presume) to enable the world to get a game plan to fight that warming.
For a start, what if the warming (whatever the value) is perfectly natural? The world is whipped into a frenzy for nothing.
What if the warming is beneficial to some countries and not others? One country is busy burning cheap coal and oil, another building expensive wind turbines and solar panels.
What if there is no long term warming and what we are measuring amounts to nothing more than natural variation?
And finally, what if the warming is real and man-made sources are the cause? Countries seem focused on selling global warming as a benefit, even an economic advantage. If the people pushing cap and trade are in it for the environment and their children’s future, why are they set to make so much money from it?
One of the least important problems in the world is variation in world temperature. Agreeing to quantify the level of warming is such a meaningless goal. This is akin to solving world hunger. So solve world hunger first and then let’s agree on a value for warming.
Jee wiz, Tom, I hope I’m not too late to contribute. A protracted ride from work, a couple of beers and
a,two, sigh, 3 protracted phone call and I miss all the fun! I haven’t read all of the responses, so if this has already been stated and addressed ….that’s the way it went.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tom, first and foremost, one doesn’t compromise truth. Any attempt to do so, well, sucks. So, you suck, dude! (Sorry, I couldn’t help it! Joke on the third sentence.)
Secondly, you said, “If you find the gaping flaw in my logic, my idea can die quickly, if not quietly.” Skeptics can’t be batched into one group/voice. I can only surmise by the amount of responses, this has probably become apparent. We couldn’t, even if we wanted to do such a thing. From all walks of earth, people have gathered to state in one resounding voice, CAGW is BS!!! But on various levels. For instance, on the mathematical level, Steve McIntyre has challenged the propaganda, but he seems to be against the Virginia AG investigation. Many here cheer the investigation. We have creationists, atheists, socialists, capitalists, vegans, and hunters, and everything in between all stating the GW theory as wrong! Anthony approached the theory in regards to data collection. Others, on an astrophysics level. There is no “one” voice to give to the decision makers and consensus is anathema to most skeptics. So, no,not from the skeptic side. We can’t.
Thirdly, you talk of uncertainty. Tom? Really? There never was, nor was it ever implied that mankind should have guarantees about anything, save one. Go back to the “planners” of this world and tell them, “Sorry, we don’t know what tomorrow holds.” We never did, we don’t now, and we won’t tomorrow. This is why life is worth living. Not only should you and they get used to it, we all should embrace the concept! As it is, I see too much, already.
Lastly, Tom, listen to yourself. You know CO2 makes up a very small percentage of our atmosphere. You know that human contribution is only a percentage of the contribution. We’re talking parts per million!!! Try putting that in a microscope to get a feel of the significance. It doesn’t matter what. Just do it and then put it in perspective. Your tug at our heartstrings is naive. You said, “The people in developing countries are actually more vulnerable……….” Here’s how you fix that problem. Move them from developing to developed. This is, obviously contrary to the CAGW agenda. That said, I fully believe we should encourage them to develop and give them the tools to do so. I believe the people in my country and mankind in general benefits were this to happen. If they don’t from there, I can’t help them nor would I have the luxury of worrying about it.
Personally, I’d love to see the statement, “yeh, the earth’s temp may rise a bit more.”, (without assigning causation, because we don’t know!). “More, warming would probably benefit mankind, but there will be some adversely effected, as has happened throughout the ages.” It happens often. “Sorry, there’s nothing we can do about it and given man’s
historytrack record, we really shouldn’t even try to do anything regarding climate change.” Man’s adaptability is one of the many things that define us. We’re fine, we’re going to be fine in our struggle against nature. The worst thing in the world to do to our populous, would be to attempt a very costly interdiction.I can’t put it any better than President Vaclav Klaus put it, (and I hope he’s been invoked several times already) “Our interest is, or should be, a free, democratic and prosperous society. That is the reason why we have to stand up against all attempts to undermine it. We should be prepared to adapt to all kinds of future climate changes (including cooling) but we should never accept losing our freedom.”
I(and many like me) don’t compromise on freedom or truth. Tell your “Families, businesses and yes, even governments” this is what they can plan on.
The short and simple answer to Thomas’ query is this:
It is absolutely impossible to issue drastic public policy changes based on assumptions, speculation, and unknowns. To do so, is to play a very dangerous game of russian roulette.
To clarify what I’m getting at:
We do not know for certain the temp changes (up or down), we do not know for certain when (if at all) those changes will occur, nor do we know for certain the environmental impact of those unknown changes and unknown timeframes.
To ask for mitigating answers at this stage of the game is simply an excercise in futility.
If we are to direct adaptation and mitigation of any kind, it needs to be gradually implimented (I cannot express this enough), and, more importantly, it needs to be concentrated solely to getting ourselves off of fossil fuel dependancy for reasons of potential future resource shortages and nothing more. A cleaner, self-sustaining future ensures our longevity.
We cannot and should not enforce sudden societal chaos based on “what if” climate change scenarios.
Unfortunately, I have absolutely no faith in our policy makers to play those cards accordingly. But that’s a whole other thread in and of itself.
Background: There is no way to compromise between the sailor who says we have to start throwing people out of the lifeboat and the other sailor who sees land on the horizon and says no worries, mate!
However, if we must compromise, I seriously see a Maunder minimum starting next year and in 25 years history suggests the globe average temperature will be 4°C lower than the recent averages. Thomas says it will be 2.5°C warmer.
Eureka! In accordance with Thomas’ offer of compromise, we take him at his word and then split the difference—AND finally agree that the world will be 1.5°C colder. Result: let’s start burning hydrocarbons, everyone—I don’t think it will matter, because man’s influence is tiny, but let’s use the precautionary principle and burn everything in sight for the next twenty years, at least. We could also deposit soot on the poles, although it will probably melt through and refreeze on top, but precautionary principles do not have to be too logical, do they?
We have arrived at an agreement.
Tom,
I’ve read your post again as requested, and I’ve not read the comments. The reason for that is I don’t want to bias my opinion.
You wrote this:
“Families, businesses and yes, even governments, need to make plans for the future. Those plans used to include assumptions about the physical environment, although most of those assumptions were passive acceptance of the status quo.”
To which I question, why is it that we need to plan anything? The weather is the weather and it is far more severe than even 5 C of climate change. I have a business and am well educated in climate and still don’t know why I need to plan “for climate”.
The ocean thermal mass will save us from anything severe, and toss us under the proverbial bus when it experiences something severe.
Science is about understanding. My opinion is that we don’t know what portion of current temp rise has to do with AGW. Why establish an arbitrary limit.
Do we know any number is near correct?
Then once we’ve established that we have our own ‘consensus’ of an equally random number to models, what does that mean? Do we act now to affect the random number?
What if the consensus is correct and the 2.5 number is way too low? What if it is way way too low?
What if negative feedback completely cancels CO2?
Why not wait and see?
I am fortunate to have a blog where thousands stop by to read my next post. It is unfortunate for my readers that I don’t have the important answer — then it is far more unfortunate that nobody else does either.
Hi all,
Just checking back in after an afternoon matinee (Reds, w/ Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren and Morgan Freeman–three stars).
I’m beginning to think I’ll need to rewrite my position statement. Several of you have pointed out that I didn’t logically follow through on my transition from CO2 concentrations to all human effects. (My feeling being that since we’re using temperatures, that captures all effects. Since we’re using CO2 concentrations, it allows us to look at the correlation between the two. It would be odd to think that a greenhouse gas that started being produced in industrial quantities right about the end of the LIA didn’t have any effect at all….)
Jimbo and JohnA
John A says:
October 20, 2010 at 1:46 pm
An apposite question for Tom Fuller would be: what would be the circumstances which would falsify the lukewarmer position? If the “global mean temperature” continues to flatline or fall slightly for X years, how big would X have to be before the lukewarm hypothesis were to be abandoned?
Obviously it is easier to falsify the lukewarmer position than either of the extremes. It can happen in either direction, too. I personally have the opinion (that’s all it is) that this decade is ‘meant’ to be a cold one, with the way certain cycles are trending. If temperatures go up more than 0.2 C this decade, I’m going to be quite worried that my train of logic was actually a puddle. Sadly, because I think this decade ‘wants’ to be cool, it will take longer to falsify in the other direction. I would want to see two decades of declining ocean heat, and see if the oceans suck back in measurable quantities of CO2.
Actually the way I read the title piece is if temperatures were to rise 2C over the next 100 years what do we do to plan for the changes. This precludes the question of weather (sorry – couldn’t resist) or not the temperature is actually going to rise that much, and what is likely causing it. I do not think anyone really knows, nor is the jury back from ruling if global temperatures are going up, down, or are relatively stable.
So, accepting the posit (for the sake of argument) that temperatures will rise 2C+, what do we do about it (if anything)?
Conversely one could argue what do we do if temperatures FALL by 2C-, which would be FAR more dangerous in my estimation than a rise.
And then, finally, what do we do if there is no change ~0C – that one seems simple.
If 2C+ then what effect will that have on growing seasons (seem stable – wheat harvest times are normal), tree lines (no changes so far), various areas currently under ice, glacier melt speeds (we are leaving an InterGlacial after all), reduced heating costs in winter, increased cooling costs in summer (surely we can do better than simply pumping the heat outside!), and so on. How much investment should we make to deal with a temperature rise of 0.2C/decade?
Well, that’s enough for now, but I leave you with this last thought:
Odd how most people, when they want to go on vacation, plan on a warmer climate…other than ski bums of course!
“So I think we should provide a ‘rough and ready’ estimate of 2 degrees C climate change this century to the public, business and politicians, so they can start making plans for the future.”
Absolutely, categorically, and emphatically no. As others have illustrated above, it is the height of stupidity to assume we can predict future climate with the knowledge we have now. It’s worse than useless to present the public with an “official” estimate that has no scientific basis. Far better to admit to uncertainty and let people deal with that.
So how do we deal with uncertainty? As Andrew and others above have pointed out, the best response to any future climate change is economic and scientific advancement. We should do Nothing (with a capital N) about “climate disruption”, and everything to remove political obstacles to economic development.
Pamela Gray says October 20, 2010 at 4:54 pm ” I think is it our rising human population, which has a near identical rise compared to CO2 (started up at the same time, and has a slope that is nearly identical).”
As the population increases so does UHI effect biasing global temperature rise, the increasing C02 maybe being only coincidental
Bruce says:
October 20, 2010 at 12:46 pm
The Vostok Ice Core data from: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/panorama/panorama11.html
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/Vostok.JPG
2-3 degrees C swings over short periods common the last 12,000 years.
What then is .6 C over the last 100 years?
This might seem very simplistic, but the best evidence for there being no significant positive feedback is that this planet has been inhabited continuously for a very long time and with some very drastic step inputs along the way to jostle the climate stability. Even when frozen to snowball earth state, it recovered. It was once possible to walk from Kona to Hana – we survived. It was once possible to walk to Europe from Great Britain. We survived. We survived the last ice age. Life survived all the previous ice ages and I’ve no doubt life as it exists then will survive the next dozens. We humans may not survive the next great magma event nor the next great impact, but something will.
Rather than ramping up a “Manhattan Project” to combat global climate petulance or what ever we call it now how about we do something about cancer, find a way to use crops for food and not fuel, and to educate without liberal bias, the children of the world? Ok – I’m over reaching – that last part is probably not possible.
Tom–
“I do not at all consider it unscientific to take the best two measurements we have–CO2 concentrations and satellite measurements of temperature–and say with appropriate caveats that if trends continue we might see 2 degrees C of warming over the next century. ”
The problem is that inherently assumes that C02 is responsible for something close to all of that warming. Which upstream you say that you and IPCC know that isn’t true, but you just repeated it again by implication in that statement I just quoted.
It makes a difference –potentially a very big difference– if C02 is a 5%, 10%, 20%, 33%, 50%, 80%. . . pick a number. You seem to be picking a number much closer to 100% than 0%, and for many of us who still consider themselves lukewarmers that is yet unproven. As far as I can tell, if it is even as low as 50%, that has huge financial implications and timeline implications. And if you factor out land-use changes, it could be significantly lower than that. And if it is lower, then controlling C02 at very high expense spends a lot of money for not much result.
I think the science is clear that C02 will make *some* contribution, and you can’t even prove that falling temperatures and increasing C02 can disprove that. . . all you’ve shown is that natural variability *can* overwhelm C02 contribution, not that C02 makes no contribution (tho you’ve probably also shown that C02’s contribution is less than natural variability’s. . . a position I myself happen to believe in)
Basic algebra — (10 + 2) = (14 – 2) = (6 + 5 + 10 – 9) = etc etc.
That’s why Roy Spencer is my kind of lukewarmer –he understands that.
I have been reading WUWT for two years now. There is practically nothing new mentioned in the comments section here.
My question (and I think Mr. Fuller’s ultimate question): Can’t we stop running in circles and get to an agreed upon exit strategy from fossil fuels? What skeptic wants to keep burning fossil fuels? None. I know you joke about burning it till the cows come home because we aren’t afraid of it causing catastrophic climate change. Come on! There are plenty of other reasons to get the F off of coal and fossil fuels. TONS OF GOOD REASONS.
The common ground between skeptics and AGWers needs to be exploited!!!!! I don’t give an OOOP about climate change, but there are few things I feel more passionate about… GET OFF OF FOREIGN OIL! Get energy independent! Put all phasers on developing renewables! Clean up the environment! My children’s children need energy! Tax revenue! Economic development!
So much of this Bull-S is a fight between conservatives and liberals. Communists vs capitolists. Whatever. Tell the conservative he’s fighting terrorism if we become energy independent. Tell the environmentalist we will beat Big Oil if we allow the funds from drilling and nuclear to fund new technologies. Find some common ground and GET TO WORK!!!
Freakin’ activists!!
I don’t pretend to know much about climate. I read everything I can, and most of the argument seems to be about the propriety of various statistical methods of analysis. With only one class in non-calculus stat, I’m just not equipped for Climate predictions. It seems likely that climate is changing, as always, and perhaps humans have some detectable influence.
So what ?! Climate change is no reason to force rate-payers to buy dirty, unreliable solar, wind, or bio power at top dollar from well-connected rent seekers. Nor is it a valid reason for the Feds to kill thousands yearly by mandating tiny, light, unsafe cars. The politicians just use the situation to steal your freedom and your treasure. Just leave us alone and we’ll adapt organicly to any change that occurs, at far less cost than the government planners’ solutions .
I’m voting against any politician that wants to “do something” about climate change. We don’t need their “help”.
Thomas,
You seem to be drifting into “warmer” territory since you and Steven wrote “Climategate : The CRUtape Letters”. In the book you two said about lukewarmers, “With regards to policy the Lukewarmers” take the position that actions be taken on the certainty of the science.” To date there is no certainty. You acknowledge that skeptics presently hold the high ground, so wherefore the call for an arbitrary decision on a number. and if we sue for peace, will this validate that number. And by skeptics, I assume that you mean the more noble meaning as those questioning the consensus and not just the narrow and rather pejorative definition of skeptic in your book.
Okay. The minor criticism is out of the way so I can tell you I bought your book and thought it thoroughly worthwhile reading.
Tomas,
You don’t mention the contribution of UHI.
You don’t mention any possibility the the compilation of global indexes could be at fault.
You don’t mention natural variability – climate is a chaotic system – we just do not know how much it may flutter from one cycle to the next.
150 years or so of data is too short a period to know.
I study the temperature at various locations in Australia.
It has not been rising there as the so called “HQ” BOM series would say.
I do agree with the need that business has for certainty.
But being certainly wrong is not a good guide to the future.
We are still back trying to determine the facts and what those facts mean.
It would be very helpful if this issue were removed from the political fray.
It needs to be debated quietly amongst fair open minded scientists and scientifically minded people.
In the maenwhile you should advise all businessmen to get on with their business on a “business as usual basis” and to take no notice of the chattering classes.
The BOM forecast continued poor rainfall in Australia.
This year we’ve had more than our fill.
That’s because the slow wheel of climate has just started to turn once again.
I can’t advise you not to stay luke warm if that is your preference.
Just don’t pack away you heavy overcoat.
You may well need it.
The climate changes all the time.
It’s just that it changes in cycles within cycles within cycles.
Man is puny.
Don’t forget that.
I notice Mr Fuller throws red meat out, then stands back and watches the ravenous lions attack it. But he doesn’t respond to most comments. It would be much better if Tom would answer the many specific questions directed to him here. But he almost never takes a chance on doing that. Insecurity, maybe? No one likes to be set straight in public.
Tom goes by his feelings, rather than knowledge. So let’s guess which of these folks is closest to Tom’s scientific rigor.☺
[BTW, you don’t suck, Tom. You’ve just been too influenced by Moshpit☺☺☺]