It’s not the climate, but the tide of opinion that’s changing in Europe and around the globe
Guest post by Dr. Hans Labohm
The upcoming climate change (and wealth redistribution) summit in Cancun – coupled with Bjorn Lomborg’s ongoing publicity campaign for his new film – makes one thing painfully obvious. The fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle.
For decades the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scare-mongering by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive effort to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion.
But the tide seems to be turning. The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.
People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.
In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.
However, skepticism about manmade climate disasters is gradually gaining ground nevertheless.
In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Standing Committee on Environment of the Lower House even organized a one-day hearing, where both climate chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.
This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The Academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.
Europe often brags about its emission trading scheme (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun at year’s end will surely produce a similar result. And for good reason.
Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismally bad. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More importantly, it serves no useful purpose.
The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe’s performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The European Union’s greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3% below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9% compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”
On the face of it, the scheme seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was due to the global economic recession, not to the ETS. Moreover, both climate chaos proponents and climate disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact whatsoever on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.
What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these EU costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: nuclear 4, coal 4, natural gas 5, onshore wind 13, biomass 16 … solar 56!
Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high, compared to hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send petroleum and coal prices through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection neither argument is tenable.
The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As to global warming, the absence of a statistically significant increase in average worldwide temperatures since 1995 obliterates that assertion.
Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.
All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of financial and natural resources on unreliable and thus uncompetitive forms of energy. Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.
______________
Hans Labohm is a former professor at the Dutch Institute of International Relations and guest teacher at the Netherlands Institute for Defense Studies. He has been an IPCC reviewer and has written extensively on global warming, petroleum economics and other topics.
Climate change no longer scary in Europe
It’s not the climate, but the tide of opinion that’s changing in Europe and around the globe
Dr. Hans Labohm
The upcoming climate change (and wealth redistribution) summit in Cancun – coupled with Bjorn Lomborg’s ongoing publicity campaign for his new film – makes one thing painfully obvious. The fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle.
For decades the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scare-mongering by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive effort to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion.
But the tide seems to be turning. The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.
People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.
In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.
However, skepticism about manmade climate disasters is gradually gaining ground nevertheless.
In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Standing Committee on Environment of the Lower House even organized a one-day hearing, where both climate chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.
This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The Academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.
Europe often brags about its emission trading scheme (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun at year’s end will surely produce a similar result. And for good reason.
Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismally bad. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More importantly, it serves no useful purpose.
The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe’s performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The European Union’s greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3% below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9% compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”
On the face of it, the scheme seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was due to the global economic recession, not to the ETS. Moreover, both climate chaos proponents and climate disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact whatsoever on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.
What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these EU costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: nuclear 4, coal 4, natural gas 5, onshore wind 13, biomass 16 … solar 56!
Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high, compared to hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send petroleum and coal prices through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection neither argument is tenable.
The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As to global warming, the absence of a statistically significant increase in average worldwide temperatures since 1995 obliterates that assertion.
Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.
All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of financial and natural resources on unreliable and thus uncompetitive forms of energy. Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.
______________
Hans Labohm is a former professor at the Dutch Institute of International Relations and guest teacher at the Netherlands Institute for Defense Studies. He has been an IPCC reviewer and has written extensively on global warming, petroleum economics and other topics.
Climate change no longer scary in Europe
It’s not the climate, but the tide of opinion that’s changing in Europe and around the globe
Dr. Hans Labohm
The upcoming climate change (and wealth redistribution) summit in Cancun – coupled with Bjorn Lomborg’s ongoing publicity campaign for his new film – makes one thing painfully obvious. The fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle.
For decades the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scare-mongering by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive effort to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion.
But the tide seems to be turning. The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.
People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.
In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.
However, skepticism about manmade climate disasters is gradually gaining ground nevertheless.
In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Standing Committee on Environment of the Lower House even organized a one-day hearing, where both climate chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.
This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The Academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.
Europe often brags about its emission trading scheme (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun at year’s end will surely produce a similar result. And for good reason.
Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismally bad. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More importantly, it serves no useful purpose.
The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe’s performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The European Union’s greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3% below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9% compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”
On the face of it, the scheme seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was due to the global economic recession, not to the ETS. Moreover, both climate chaos proponents and climate disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact whatsoever on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.
What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these EU costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: nuclear 4, coal 4, natural gas 5, onshore wind 13, biomass 16 … solar 56!
Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high, compared to hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send petroleum and coal prices through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection neither argument is tenable.
The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As to global warming, the absence of a statistically significant increase in average worldwide temperatures since 1995 obliterates that assertion.
Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.
All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of financial and natural resources on unreliable and thus uncompetitive forms of energy. Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.
______________
Hans Labohm is a former professor at the Dutch Institute of International Relations and guest teacher at the Netherlands Institute for Defense Studies. He has been an IPCC reviewer and has written extensively on global warming, petroleum economics and other topics.
HenryP says:
November 23, 2010 at 5:15 am
“human activities that produce water vapor are a lot more”
Water vapour is an important greenhouse gas – but it is not a long-lived one.
The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of the temperature of the atmosphere. Any attempt to increase the amount in an atmosphere approximately at equilibrium with its water content would result in more precipitation over a period of the following weeks until the amount in the atmosphere returned to approximate equilibrium.
Human activity, therefore, cannot directly increase the amount of water in the atmosphere, except for a short time period. We can only increase it long-term by increasing the heat content of the atmosphere, and that IS what we are doing by increasing long-lived greenhouse gases such as CO2. It was to that that Jones was referring.
P. Solar says:
November 22, 2010 at 2:54 pm
“…..This is a poorly written propaganda article that uses vague and inaccurate generalities to support a predetermined stance.
Antony would do well to reduce the quantity of posts and verify the quality, IMHO. This sort of article damages the credibility of the site.”
___________________________________________________________________
On the contrary Antony was quite correct in posting this piece and allowing a debate about its merit. It is called policing one’s own ranks.
Do they do a global climate dataset too?
Is it available on the web?
Does anyone else see the problem with this line of reasoning?
“That is what Phil Jones said. Phil Jones said not: “…there has been no measurable warming since 1995″. He is not in the habit of distorting reality.”
RR Kampen provides us yet again with a masterful example of deadpan humour!
So drole!
Slioch says:
November 22, 2010 at 4:05 pm
matt v. says:
November 22, 2010 at 1:52 pm
BTW, lest you should find yourself thinking that the low rate of global warming of the last ten years, to which you draw attention, is in some respect significant, do take a look…
Clearly, the periods exist within an overall warming trend. Such periods of cooling in an overall warming trend are inevitable where there is an overall warming trend of nearly 0.2C per decade and annual variability of up to +or-0.2C per year (ie where the data is ‘noisy’): that is also why they are not significant.
Getting excited about such periods of cooling and claiming that they show we are about to descend into a longer period of cooling is not justified.
___________________________________________________________
So why don’t YOU look at the long term trends as you are suggesting we do.
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif
I certainly see nothing alarming. I also see the temperature goes up and down in cycles and if I was concerned about anything it would be how close we are to the next Ice Age.
From your favorite person, Joe Romm over at Climate Progress states:
“Absent human emissions, we’d probably be in a slow long-term cooling trend due primarily by changes in the Earth’s orbit — see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds…” http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/16/hockey-stick-paper-mcshane-and-wyner-statisticians/#more-31767
That is exactly what this paper did. It looked at the entire Holecene:
Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
“..Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present… As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished. Late Holocene cooling reached its nadir during the Little Ice Age (about 1250-1850 AD), when sun-blocking volcanic eruptions and perhaps other causes added to the orbital cooling, allowing most Arctic glaciers to reach their maximum Holocene extent…”
This paper also agrees that we are at the point in the earth’s Milankovitch cycle that ushers in an ice age. The biggest question of course is why we are not covered in ice yet.
Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)
“Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….”
The biggest problem with this paper and the CAGW theory, is it assumes no changes in the energy from the sun received by the earth. However during the 20th century the sun has been very active according to this paper and NASA This is no longer true as we enter the new century according to the Solar Dynamics Observatory Mission News
The actual data shows the earth is gradually headed downhill towards another glaciation, the only question is when and how. A quiet sun, cool ocean phases and a major volcanic eruption would be my guess as the trigger point. CO2 warming can not counteract the combined effects of the other big three. As the oceans cool the CO2 levels will increasingly drop.
Abrupt Climate Change: Should We Be Worried? – Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
“Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.
Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earthvs climate can shift gears within a decade….
But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur…“
As far as I am concerned neglecting change towards a COOLING world is down right criminal negligence – my biggest gripe with CAGW.
We are so busy watching the yapping little poodle we can not see the mammoth that just walked into the room.
That wiki page has links to the statements of all the scientific bodies mentioned.
Nor should you be. The anti-scientific movement in the public is huge in the field of climate change. For example this site tries to purvey a counterscientifc opinion, and most of the comments are people who accept it as if that is in some way reasonable.
Which other link? The Boykoff paper or the Oreskes Essay?
Read the Boykoff paper.
And example of how a democratic government does not want to hear about the reality of climate change.
Allowed? The USA protects free speech. Anyone can yell anything they like, and the government can’t stop them.
His point was that the reports to government were heavily edited to support the government’s wish not to act, not that his right to free speech was being curtailed.
And yet damped a lot from the scientific reality.
It depends what you mean. If you’re going to try to claim that anything that I don’t state is not agreed upon by the scientific community, because you asked me to state it in its entirety, then, no, this space is not sufficient to put the entire basis of optics on which our knowledge of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is based.
But the Oreskes Essay and the IPCC statement that no scientific organisation of standing disagrees with, is that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
@JohninEnfield
John Shade at Climate Lessons has posted on your comment about what might be a sea-change in the attitudes of teachers you know. If any other people think this change may indeed be beginning to happen, please let him know and also give useful links on this to any teachers you know. http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/
Slioch,
Who is saying there’s been no warming? The earth is still emerging from the LIA. Warming is to be expected, and the planet has warmed to a greater extent numerous times during the Holocene. There is no evidence that this time it’s different.
The real question is: does CO2 drive the climate? There is no verifiable real world evidence that it does. No doubt CO2 adds a minor amount of warming, but it is too small to reliably measure.
The entire global warming scare, and the proposed countermeasures, assume that “carbon” is responsible for all, or almost all of the few tenths of a degree warming. But this is only conjecture, since proponents of the the AGW scare refuse to do science according to the scientific method. Thus, their conclusions are not science, but simply opinion.
Like the guy loadin’ bales of cotton and totin’ dat barge, as the song has it, I gets weary of people whose names have never appeared here on WUWT before who suddenly swarm here to declare that one P Jones is as pure as the driven snow and that he never admitted that the world hasn’t warmed over the past 15 years.
I would be very happy if we kept on recovering from the LIA until it gets at least as warm as the MWP, but the thermometers and the trends they drive aren’t pointing that way right now, not in the UK, at least.
. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line.
This is one of those pull quotes that seems obvious once stated, but most do not correlate the countries with influence. I give the author an insightfule for that one!
@ur momisugly Wombat
It doesn’t even take a PHD degree in science to understand how to calculate the uncertainty present in an estimate of the straight line slope of plotted points to a 95% confidence interval.
Quite. Which professional statisticians have reviewed Phil Jones’ claim that 95% confidence is the right level to use?
Sexton: “For the record, could you state the “consensus” opinion in its entirety?”
Wombat: “It depends what you mean. If you’re going to try to claim that anything that I don’t state is not agreed upon by the scientific community, because you asked me to state it in its entirety, then, no, this space is not sufficient to put the entire basis of optics on which our knowledge of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is based.”
I’ve been waiting for your response to see how you would duck Sexton’s question. Your squirming is a joy to behold. But perhaps James is guilty of not defining his question with a bit more precision. Permit me to intervene.
Is the consensus one of the following, and if so which?
a) Global temperatures have increased in the 20th century.
b) Global temperatures have increased, and most of this warming is due to human released co2.
c) Most of the warming is due to co2, and net positive feedbacks will lead to temperature increases above 2c by 2100.
d) The warming will not only be above 2c but will be catatastrophic to human civilization and lead to another great extinction.
Slioch
You said
“In order to predict whether change is pending we need to look at the likely future forcings – and they all suggest continued warming. Getting distracted by things of no significance is not helpful.”
Sounds like you do not do your homework before posting.
PDO has gone negative and cooling
AMO has peaked and has started its decline
SOI has been high positive since July [predicts cold weather]
AO and NAO are now more frequently at higher negative levels more often
Solar activity continues low
Most Global mean temperature anomaly data sets show dropping anomalies
Ocean SST’S are dropping
Ocean heat content has levelled off and some droping fast [ Atlantic ocean]
Europe and Asia have had three cold winters in a row and in several areas record 2010 winter just past
North American annual temperatures have been cooling for three years
US had one of its worst winters in 2010
2010 had the 2nd most snow extent for Northern Hemispehere sincce 1978/1979
The list goes on and on
Suggest you read http://isthereglobalcooling.com/
We are not talking about short term cool periods but like 20-30 years.[ like 1880-1910 and again 1944-1976]
roger says:
November 23, 2010 at 7:09 am
RR Kampen provides us yet again with a masterful example of deadpan humour!
So drole!
No, I just corrected a small mistake by Hans Labohm, thank me 🙂
Pete:
Peak Oil is a myth. And your assertions that Peak Oil has been reached are baseless.
Oil reserves have been at ~40 years throughout the last century and will remain at ~40 years throughout this century. This is because oil companies have a planning horizon of ~40 years so
(a) they hire people to look for more oil if they don’t have ~40 years reserves
but
(b) they don’t pay people to look for more oil if they have ~40 years reserves.
Those are the facts, and anybody can check them.
So, I can only repeat what I said in my previous post; i.e.
I suggest that people read the report and decide if it supports Hans (it does) for themselves. As you said, it can be read at:
http://www.iea.org/speech/2010/Tanaka/Jakarta_weo2010.pdf
Richard
Slioch:
You say to me:
“As for your pretence that “no measurable warming since 1995″ should be equated with “no significant warming since 1995″: well, if you wish that stain of illogic to be lodged against your name then so be it. It does not surprise me at all.”
Please enlighten me so I can remove the stain.
By what “logic” can one measure a “warming since 1995” when that warming – if it exists – is too small to be detected as being significant at 95% confidence level?
Richard
Any UK reader not scared by AGW should check out their Department of Energy’s website for its DECC Business Plan 2011-2015 (open for responses to 31/01/11). Whether the diagnosis is reliable or not, this cure could prove fatal. How can a country in the UK’s economic position even think about throwing so much money (that it doesn’t have) at a mere hypothesis? Still, there are a few good jokes if you read it carefully…
Richard S Courtney says:
November 23, 2010 at 9:21 am
By what “logic” can one measure a “warming since 1995″ when that warming – if it exists – is too small to be detected as being significant at 95% confidence level?
Phil Jones answers:
BBC – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Jones – Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
The short version of this answer might read: wait just another year. Perhaps this year will get the temperature rise in the 95% confidence level already.
Henry@Slioch
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
recommend reading it
We have so many factors, and no test results…
1) radiative cooling by Co2
2) radiative warming by Co2
Which one is bigger? No actual proof that 2) is bigger has been presented to me.
3) cooling by CO2 due to vegetation (why do forests grow where it it is warmer?)
4) More water vapor also means more clouds which causes more cooling due to deflection of sun light.
5)But more water vapor also traps more heat from earth.
Which effect is bigger? where does the heat go when water vapor condenses? What about the water vapor and oxygen that like CO2 also traps heat at 14-15 um?
So many questions and so few answers to these questions that are based on actual physical tests.
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
recommend reading it
then come back to me if you have actual test results from actual tests.
Richard S Courtney says:
November 23, 2010 at 9:21 am
“By what “logic” can one measure a “warming since 1995″ when that warming – if it exists – is too small to be detected as being significant at 95% confidence level?”
The warming is measured and recorded within the various temperature/time series – I gave the five year average temperatures above since that removes most of the annual variation, but if you wish you can use annual figures or the linear trend as Jones did – no method is perfect but they all show a warming from 1995 to February this year when Jones was interviewed.
The point about significance is NOT whether there has been a warming, it is whether that warming can be attributed to a long-term warming trend or whether it could simply be the result of inter-annual variation.
Temperatures since since 1975 can be described as a combination of a long-term trend of about 0.16-0.18degC/decade (caused by increasing heat energy in the atmosphere/oceans/land surface system) upon which is superimposed annual variations of + or – c. 0.2degC (caused by varying distributions of that heat throughout the atmosphere/oceans/land surface system).
The question that Jones addressed was basically: was the warming from 1995 caused by the long-term trend or could it have been caused by the inter-annual variation. His answer, in effect, was that there is a slightly more than 5% chance that it could have been caused by the inter-annual variation. In other words there is that small chance of slightly more than 1 in 20 that we would have witnessed the warming that we have since 1995 EVEN IF there was NO long-term warming at all.
So the Jones question was not “has there been warming?”, rather, it was, “given that warming has occurred, to what can we attribute it?” Jones answer means that there is a slightly less than 95% chance that it was caused by a net increase in the heat content of the atmosphere/oceans/land surface system.
I hope that clarifies the situation.
R. de Haan says:
November 23, 2010 at 2:53 am
The public awareness that AGW is a scam might grow but that doesn’t change the fact that European citizens are no longer free.
This article from Lubos Motl is a stunning example of that fact.
Tuesday, november 23, 2010 …
DDR stole 40,000 little heat balls
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/11/ddr-stole-40000-little-heatballs.html
———————————————————–
I read that article, then the actual legislation preventing the importation and retailing of incandescent lights, from the Official Journal of the European Union: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:076:0003:0016:EN:PDF#ANNEXII
This bit caught my eye:
“A review of this measure should take particular note of
the evolution of sales of special purpose lamp types so as
to verify that they are not used for general lighting
purposes“. (my emphasis)
What a bunch of control freaks.
I have been fizzing for a while now at the fact that the EU is trying to tell us what we can and cannot use as illumination in our own homes. I just ordered 20 more incandescents (60W and 100W) online, to add to my stock, before they get any harder to get hold of.
Energy savers are good for some applications, incandescents for others. I’d like to make my own choice on that, thank you Brussels.
Dear Leif
Over the past ten years, I have down loaded a full compliment of temperature anomolies, from GISS, years apart and they are not the same. It appears that Dr.Jim Hansen keep altering historical temperature records.
Does this mean that the basleline is “floating”?
unspots says:
November 23, 2010 at 12:42 pm
It appears that Dr.Jim Hansen keep altering historical temperature records.
Does this mean that the baseline is “floating”?
I’m sure Hansen will defend the alterations as being improvements. What is means is simply that we do not have reliable long-term records. For the past 30 years we have good satellite data and they are not too different from the GISS record as has been discussed several times on this blog. E.g. by Mosher.
RR Kampen and Slioch:
Thank you for the laughs you have given me.
Hans Labohm wrote;
“Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995.”
You disputed that so I pointed out that “Hans is undeniably right if one accepts “measurable warming” means ‘warming that is discernible as existing with 95% confidence’.”
RR Kampen, you have disputed my observation by saying;
“The short version of this answer might read: wait just another year. Perhaps this year will get the temperature rise in the 95% confidence level already.”
LOL. Of course it “might” or it might not change this year or some future year. But your “answer” confirms that Hans’ statement is true.
And Slioch, your nonsensical excuses are really funny. Your most recent one tries to pretend the discussion is about something other than the correct statement made by Hans that you disputed. Now, you assert;
“So the Jones question was not “has there been warming?”, rather, it was, “given that warming has occurred, to what can we attribute it?” Jones answer means that there is a slightly less than 95% chance that it was caused by a net increase in the heat content of the atmosphere/oceans/land surface system.”
Say what!? No! You cannot possibly expect anybody to swallow that.
Jones was asked a question and he answered it. Hans Labohm accurately reported that answer.
The question and the answer were:
BBC – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Jones – Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Slioch, Hans Labohm clearly and unarguably correctly reported what Jones said. And nobody outside of a padded cell can honestly interpret what Jones said as being anything like what you assert.
But please keep it up guys. The sillyness of your posts does more to inform unbiased onlookers of the nature of AGW arguments than anything I could say.
Richard