Well, at least they established a standard early on…
Lest you think you have to drill down to find this, here’s the front page:
link: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Well, at least they established a standard early on…
Lest you think you have to drill down to find this, here’s the front page:
link: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Did Orwell write this?
@Luis Dias says:
March 18, 2011 at 4:49 pm
“….You should think more about this. This line of thought that we should “adapt” to climate change has really been taboo, and when people like Bjorn Lomborg said the same thing, he was booed. It’s really a good idea, since it envolves investment on the things that will protect us from climatic threats, like hurricanes, floods, droughts. This is good investment, *independently of climatic predictions of how the planet will warm up or not*, since “extremes” will always happen, as we can testify with the Katrina, and now with the Japan’s earthquake. ..”
Umm?
We are already very well protected, thank you, from WEATHER threats which are predictable. Of course we are – anything predictable needs defending against.
Warmists have predicted major increases in weather threats as a result of their belief that the world is heating rapidly. These threats have not materialised, and the world temperature trend has stopped rising. Why are you saying that we should ignore common sense and throw money at threats which do not exist?
Looks like a bunch of computer modeling, combined with “could”, “may happen”, and a bunch of unscientific qualifiers.
I thought I was going to get a freebie… then I submitted my professional email.
Now, I am welcome to pay for anything I want…
Sorry, I missed this,
Joel Shore says:
March 18, 2011 at 8:11 pm
James Sexton says:
BTW, the most recent decadal temps trends?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970
Now with context: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970
Yes, let’s context it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/scale:75/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/trend/scale:75/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/scale:75/plot/esrl-co2/from:1970/offset:-325/plot/esrl-co2/from:1970/trend/offset:-325/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2001.8/trend/scale:75
Hmm, another hiding of the decline?
Tim Clark says:
March 18, 2011 at 6:15 pm
eadler says:
March 18, 2011 at 5:37 pm
“This online magazine seems well balanced, despite the sarcastic comments made by so many posters on this web site.”
You better read the letter on agriculture. We’ve discussed this before. An averaged global temperature increase of one degree will not harm corn yields, since Gisstemp shows unequivocably it occurs in winter, at night.
Thanks a lot for pointing this out, Leif. You have a an insidious sadistic streak.
Well balanced doesn't mean that they don't print material that supports AGW is deleterious.
In fact they have an article on work by the USDA, that shows that yields can be enhanced in a warmer climate by planting earlier. This is an argument that was pointed out by WUWT posters when the article on African climate versus corn yields was discussed.
http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20110307/food-security-wheat-agriculture-usda-science-climate-change-adaptation
Hertsgaard is preparing for precisely the wrong scenario, built on computer projections, based on faulty initial conditions.
The Sun operates in three Grand Episodic cycles (Duhau and de Jager, 2008). The last Grand Minimum was 1620 to 1724, during which the world experienced the Little Ice Age. The last Grand Regular Oscillation cycle was 1724 to 1924. The Grand Maximum, which began 1924 and has been responsible for the predominent warming trend up until now, drew to a close in 2009. This isn’t guess work, hopes, or speculation. This is a product of totally predictable planetary mechanics. Care to guess what cycle is next?
The Grand Minimum that began in 2009 is now underway. This Landscheidt Grand Solar Minimum (as it will probably wind up being named) is grinding away to its nadir in 2030. For the next 20 years the world will be getting progressively colder, not warmer. At this moment we are also in the cold phase of the PDO, with the AMO turning into its cold phase, as increasing volcanic activity puts ever larger amounts of aerosols and SO2 into the atmosphere.
If I were Hertgaard, I would not be trying to adapt to a myth of agw, climate change, climate catastrophe, or whatever nonsense they are calling it today. I would be preparing for famines caused by crop failures and millions of people freezing to death from energy shortages, brought about by more progressively brutal cold winters for the next 20 years.
And meaningless, trivial, increasing CO2 levels will be powerless to even nudge this cryogenic inevitablility.
More fun with graphs.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/scale:75/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1941/scale:75/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1941/to:1971/trend/scale:75/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1971/to:2001/trend/scale:75/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/scale:75/plot/esrl-co2/from:1941/offset:-310/plot/esrl-co2/to:1971/trend/offset:-310/plot/esrl-co2/from:1971/to:2001/offset:-310/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-310/trend
In the 70 years, CO2 only coincidentally correlated well with temps 30yrs. Dendrochronology does better than that.
andrew30,
Actually once I saw the “…since “extremes” will always happen, as we can testify with the Katrina, and now with the Japan’s earthquake…”
???”Japan’s earthquake”???
In the same sentance with “planet will warm up or not” I just gave up on the fool.
Nice insult. BTW, how the hell do you know that I’m linking climate with earthquakes? By making uncalled connections, that’s how. And I’m the fool? The hell…
My point was simple and yet apparently went over the head of the very bright commentators that responded, which makes me question the very brightness of these people.
The point is not the “climate”. The point is preparing the world for the hazardous environment we are living in, and if an article in a climatic journal makes the point that we should also adapt to climate woes, how can one find it stunning is beyond me. It clearly is what follows if you accept basic global warming, which is not something that outrageous. Just ask people like Pielke Jr., Judith Curry, etc.
Dodgy Geezer,
Umm?
We are already very well protected, thank you, from WEATHER threats which are predictable. Of course we are – anything predictable needs defending against.
Who’s “we”? Are we talking about New Orleans, here? Are we talking about Malaysia 2006? Are we speaking of the huge destruction that takes place every year somewhere around the world?
I have trouble finding exactly this “we” who are so well protected against weather outliers…
James Sexton says:
Here, I’ve added in the trend over the last 20 years…and some other 10-year trends so that we can see how global warming had stopped over the decade 1987-1997 and 1977-1987 too! (And, also can see how much difference just one year makes in a 10-year trend by comparing the current 10-year trend to the one from just one year ago.)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2001.8/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1987/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1977/to:1987/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000.3/to:2010.3/trend
The point? One can often cherry-pick trends over short time periods in such data.
From original post by James Sexton on March 18, 2011 at 6:33 pm
From Joel Shore on March 18, 2011 at 8:11 pm:
Wow, I had heard about those (C)AGW proponents trying to hide away and distort the evidence provided by skeptics, but to see it done so blatantly…
Although I can be charitable, and assume the likely explanation was Joel Shore messing up a simple copy-and-paste, then not noticing he had changed the address and was attributing a different address to James Sexton than James had actually used (which calls for issuing a correction), and he also didn’t notice both addresses were identical…
It is always wonderful to see Climate Science™ living up to the standards that Climate Science™ has set for itself, as wonderfully displayed in this wonderful new magazine.
☺
Joel Shore says:
March 19, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Back in 2010, the decadal slope did look like it was rising only slightly which indicated that the slope of the previous 30 years was no longer being maintained. As James Sexton pointed out, that has now changed. Your previous decadal slopes were fine for those times, but they are out of date now. We now have data beyond those periods. With extra data, we can then plot slopes for each section where the trend clearly changes, like beginning near 1975.
The problem is with predicting the future. That is why we are so interested in the past 10 years which clearly shows that the slope has changed. Back in mid 80s and in 1991, there were large volcanic eruptions which caused the slopes of those two flat decadal trends that you highlighted. In the past 10 years, there were no volcanic eruptions to cause a couple years of cooling. That is what makes this current decadal trend interesting.
John M Reynolds
John,
Basically, you are fooling yourself looking at “changes in slope” that are just as easily explainable as the normal behavior of a system with a slow inexorable roughly-linear upward trend + noise. You may wish that the slope has changed…but let’s check back a few years ago and see how that hypothesis is faring!
I agree. That slow inexorable roughly linear upward trend + noise would put us between about 0.5 and 0.9 C by 2110 for the anomaly using HadCRUT data. Let’s not waste our time until we get a few more decades of good data. The data that we have suggests that we have been slowly warming for 300 years — since the last little ice age. The best data that goes back to the late 1800’s shows that there are cycles of about 60 years. We just crested the latest and are headed for a period of non-warming. After that we will likely warm again if the previous cycles continue. That should only need another 30 to sixty years to confirm. Waiting 120 years would give us better confidence in the theories.
John M Reynolds
Joel Shore says:
March 20, 2011 at 6:07 pm
“John,
Basically, you are fooling yourself looking at “changes in slope” that are just as easily explainable as the normal behavior of a system with a slow inexorable roughly-linear upward trend + noise.”
Or as simple brown noise without any added linearly rising function. Or to use your words: You are fooling yourself looking for a hidden linearly rising function in the noise without even considering it could be simple non-white noise.