This may be the only entry ever made by Bob Tisdale that doesn’t contain a graph. I thank him for the unsolicited notice he gives to WUWT – Anthony
Date: May 11, 2012
Subject: New York Times Op-Ed Titled “Game Over for the Climate”
From: Bob Tisdale
To: James Hansen – NASA GISS
Dear James:
I just finished reading your opinion that appeared in yesterday’s New York Times. I enjoyed the title “Game Over for the Climate” so much that I’m considering changing the title of my book to something similar, like “Game Over for the Manmade Global Warming Scare.” Yes. That’s got a nice ring to it. Thanks for the idea. I’ll have so see how difficult it would be to change the title of the Kindle edition. Yet, while I enjoyed the title, the content of your opinion shows that you’re still hoping to appeal to those who are gullible enough to believe your claim that carbon dioxide is responsible for the recent bout of global warming. I hope you understand that many, many persons have weighed your opinions and found them wanting.
The internet has become the primary medium for discussions of anthropogenic global warming, as I’m sure you’re aware. You have your own blog. Your associate at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Gavin Schmidt is one of the founders of the once-formidable blog RealClimate. What you may not be aware of is that one of the other contributors to RealClimate Rasmus Benestad in a recent post expressed his feelings that all of their work there might have been for naught [my boldface].
However, if the notion that information makes little impact is correct, one may wonder what the point would be in having a debate about climate change, and why certain organisations would put so much efforts into denial, as described in books such as Heat is on, Climate Cover-up, Republican war on science, Merchants of doubt, and The Hockeystick and Climate Wars. Why then, would there be such things as ‘the Heartland Institute’, ‘NIPCC’, climateaudit, WUWT, climatedepot, and FoS, if they had no effect? And indeed, the IPCC reports and the reports from the National Academy of Sciences? One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain.
I can understand Rasmus Benestad’s doubts when a website skeptical of manmade global warming, WattsUpWithThat, has gained visitors since 2008 while RealClimate is floundering. The web information company Alexa shows that WattUpWithThat’s daily reach began to surpass RealClimate’s in May 2008. And for the last 6 months, Alexa could no longer rank RealClimatebecause its percentage dropped too low. On the other hand, the daily reach of WattsUpWthThat increased greatly and WattsUpWthThat has become the world’s most-viewed website on global warming and climate change.
Over the past 30 years or longer, James, you’ve created a global surface temperature record called the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index. It shows global surface temperatures have warmed since 1880. While there are some problems with that dataset we need to discuss, it is something you can be proud of. But in those 3 decades, you’ve also developed and programmed climate models with the sole intent of showing that manmade greenhouse gases were responsible for that warming. Those models are included, along with dozens of others, in the archives used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for their reports. Unfortunately, your efforts with climate models, and the efforts of the other modeling groups, have not been successful. Far from it. And since your opinions are based on the results of your climate models, one has to conclude that your opinions are as flawed as the models.
I’m one of the independent researchers who study the instrument-based surface temperature record and the output data of the climate models used by the IPCC to simulate those temperatures. Other researchers and I understand two simple and basic facts, which have been presented numerous times on blogs such as WattsUpWithThat. Keep in mind WattUpWithThat reaches a massive audience daily, so anyone who’s interested in global warming and climate change and who takes the time to read those posts also understands those two simple facts.
Fact one: the instrument-based global surface temperature record since 1901 and the IPCC’s climate model simulations of it do not confirm the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming; they contradict it.
The climate models used in the IPCC’s (2007) 4th Assessment Report show surface temperatures should have warmed about 2.9 times faster during the late warming period (1976-2000) than they did during the early warming period (1917-1944). The IPCC acknowledges the existence of those two separate warming periods. The climate model simulations are being driven by climate forcings, including manmade carbon dioxide, which logically show a higher rate during the later warming period. Yet the observed, instrument-based warming rates for the two warming periods are basically the same.
If the supposition you peddle was sound, James, manmade carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases should have warmed the surface of our planet at a much faster rate in recent decades, but they have not. In other words, there’s little evidence that the carbon dioxide you demonize in your op-ed has had any measurable effect on how fast global surface temperatures have warmed. We independent climate researchers have known this for years. It’s a topic that surfaces often, so often that it’s joked about around the blogosphere.
Some independent researchers have taken the time to present how poorly climate models simulate the rates at which global surface temperatures have warmed and cooled since the start of the 20th Century. We do this so that people without technical backgrounds can better understand that very fundament flaw with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. I resurrected it again in a two-part post back in December 2011 (see here and here), both of which were cross posted at WattsUpWithThat. I’ve published numerous posts about this since December using different datasets: sea surface temperature, land surface temperature and the combination of the two. I’ve published so many posts that show how poorly the IPCC’s climate models simulate past surface temperatures that it’s not practical to link them all. The posts also include the new and improved climate models that were prepared for the IPCC’s upcoming 5thAssessment Report. Sorry to say, they show no improvement.
Fact two: natural processes are responsible for most if not all if the warming over the past 30 years, a warming that you continue to cite as proof of the effects of greenhouse gases.
In your opinion piece, you mentioned the predictions you made in the journal Science back in 1981. Coincidentally, that’s the year when satellites began to measure the surface temperatures of the global oceans. Those satellites provide much better coverage for the measurement of global sea surface temperatures, from pole to pole. You use a satellite-based dataset as one of the sea surface temperature sources for your GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data. That NOAA sea surface temperature dataset is known as Reynolds OI.v2. It is the same dataset I have used to illustrate that natural processes, not greenhouse gases, are responsible for surface temperature warming of the global oceans since 1981. Since land surface temperatures are simply along for the ride, mimicking and exaggerating the changes in sea surface temperatures, the hypothesis you promote has a significant problem. Climate models are once again contradicted by observation-based data.
I’m one of very few independent global warming researchers who study sea surface temperature data and the processes associated with the natural mode of climate variability called El Niño-Southern Oscillation or ENSO. ENSO is a process that is misrepresented by many climate scientists when they use linear regression analysis in attempts to remove an ENSO signal from the global surface temperature record. Those misrepresentations ensure misleading results in some climate science papers.
ENSO is a natural process that you and your associates at GISS exclude in many of the climate model-based studies you publish, because, as you note, your “coarse-resolution ocean model is unable to simulate climate variations associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation processes.” In fact, there are no climate models used by the IPCC that are capable of recreating the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño and La Niña events. And I know of no scientific studies that show any one climate model is capable of correctly simulating all of the fundamental coupled ocean-atmosphere processes associated with ENSO.
If climate models are not able to simulate ENSO, then they do not include a very basic process Mother Nature has devised to increase and slow the distribution of heat from the tropics to the poles. As a result, the climate models exclude the variations in the rates at which the tropical Pacific Ocean releases naturally created heat to the atmosphere and redistributes it within the oceans, and those climate models also exclude the varying rate at which ENSO is responsible through teleconnections for the warming in areas remote to the tropical Pacific.
Climate scientists have to stop treating ENSO as noise, James. The process of ENSO serves as a source of naturally created and stored thermal energy that is discharged, redistributed and recharged periodically. Because these three functions (discharge, redistribution and recharge) all fluctuate (see Note 1), impacts of ENSO on global climate vary on annual, multiyear and multidecadal timescales. Common sense dictates that global surface temperatures will warm over multidecadal periods when the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño events outweigh those of La Niña events, causing more heat than normal to be released from the tropical Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere and to be redistributed within the oceans. And the opposite will occur, global surface will cool, when La Niña events dominate ENSO over a multidecadal period. It is no coincidence that that is precisely what has happened since 1917.
Note 1: El Niño events (the discharge mode) are not always followed by La Niña events (the recharge mode). Both El Niño and La Niña events can appear in a series of similar phase events like the El Niño events of 2002/03, 2004/05 and 2006/07 and the La Niña events of 2010/11 and 2011/12. El Niño and La Niña events can also last for more than one year, spanning multiple ENSO seasons, like the 1986/87/88 El Niño and the 1998/99/00/01 La Niña. When a strong El Niño is followed by a La Niña like the El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 it is very obvious that two portions of ENSO are acting together and redistributing warm water that’s left over from the El Niño. The results of the combined effects are actually difficult to miss in the sea surface temperature records.
The satellite-era sea surface temperature data reveals that ENSO, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for the warming of global ocean surfaces for the past 30 years, as noted earlier. It illustrates the effects of La Niña events are not the opposite of El Niño events. In fact, the satellite-based sea surface temperature data indicates that, when major El Niño events are followed by La Niña events, they can and do act together to cause upward shifts in the sea surface temperature anomalies of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans. And since the Eastern Pacific Ocean has not warmed in 30 years, those ENSO-induced upward shifts in the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific data are responsible for practically all of the global sea surface temperature warming for the last 3 decades.
I have been presenting and illustrating those ENSO-caused upward shifts for more than 3 years. I have plotted the data, discussed and animated the process of ENSO using numerous datasets: sea surface temperature, sea level, ocean currents, ocean heat content, depth-averaged temperature, warm water volume, sea level pressure, cloud amount, precipitation, the strength and direction of the trade winds, etc. And since cloud amount for the tropical Pacific impacts downward shortwave radiation (visible light) there, I’ve presented and discussed that relationship as well. The data associated with those variables all confirm how the processes of ENSO work for my readers. They also show and discuss how those upward shifts are caused by processes of ENSO. I’ve written so many posts on ENSO that it is impractical for me to link them here. A very good overview is provided in this post, or you may prefer to read the additional comments on the cross post at WattsUpWithThat.
James, you are more than welcome to use the search function at my website to research the process of ENSO. With all modesty, I have to say there’s a wealth of information there. I’ve assembled that same information in my book If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop their deceptive Ads? You might prefer the book since then you’d have a single source of more detailed discussions on the topics presented in this memo. It also illustrates and discusses how the climate models used by the IPCC in their 4th Assessment Report show no skill at being able to reproduce the global surface temperature record since 1901. Using those IPCC climate models in another group of comparisons, it shows that there are no similarities, none whatsoever, between how the sea surface temperatures of the individual ocean basins have actually warmed over the past 30 years and how the climate models show sea surface temperatures should have warmed if carbon dioxide was the cause. An overview of my book is provided in the above-linked post. Amazon also provides a Kindle preview that runs from the introduction through a good portion of Section 2. That’s about the first 15% of the book. Refer also to the introduction, table of contents, and closing in pdf form here. My book is written for those without technical backgrounds so someone like you with a deep understanding of climate science will easily be able to grasp what’s presented.
In closing, I was sort of surprised to see your May 10, 2012 opinion in the New York Times. I had discussed in the second part of my August 21, 2011 memo to you and Makiko Sato that ENSO, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for the recent 30-year rise in global sea surface temperatures. You must not have read that memo. Hopefully, you’ll read this one.
Sincerely,
Bob Tisdale
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
joeldshore says:
May 14, 2012 at 4:34 pm
………………………………………..
I wondered which lines you’d pick out of my comment.
Enjoy the warm weather and the Moon over Tuvalu!
Gail Combs says:
May 14, 2012 at 11:48 am
Myrrh says:
May 14, 2012 at 8:35 am
…..So, what they have done is to take out the direct heat from the Sun completely, as they’ve done the Water Cycle, and instead they have given the properties of the Sun’s thermal energy to visible light….
___________________________
Believe me I am well aware we are dealing with Conmen.
However even William Connelley’s beloved WIKI has not disappeared the solar heat …YET. They just do not mention it much. It is like your crazy great aunt in the attic, she is there but never mentioned.
Yes, he wasn’t able to take it out…, as he wasn’t able to take out, last time I looked, that without water Earth’s temps would be 67°C. But, the cartoon simply ignores them and by continually pushing the fictional fisics memes it distracts and anyone not familiar with the real world physics will just assume these are somehow included, and conversely, those who do know real world physics will just assume the givens mean what they think these mean. Like Miskolczi, when Wayne first told me about his work and gave some links, there was one article which in an aside said he was reading this as thermal infrared input, not the shortwave in of the AGWSF cartoon. Anything that adds to the confusion is the con’s aim..
So what about the other large chunk of energy visible light? And this is where the mis-direction comes in. I have an all metal stock trailer part is painted white part is painted black. During the summer in North Carolina, when I stand inside if I put my hand on the part painted white on the outside it is warm. If I put my hand on the part painted black on the outside it will raise blisters it is so hot.
Ah yes, the ol’ there is a black car and a white car.. and here they claim that the black is hotter because visible light is heating it because black absorbs all colour – it’s really too convoluted to explain easily when they have this idea that ‘all electromagentic energy is the same and all creates heat’ and ‘shortwave have higher energies therefore they are more powerful heaters than the lower energy thermal infrared’ and in this they lose sight completely of the different qualities and effects, and particularly capabilites… They just simply have no appreciation that the electromagnetic spectrum consists of differences, that an x-ray isn’t a radio wave, that these are distinctly different from each other, there’s a great difference in sizes, as the original NASA page points out re infrared, that near infrared which is not hot is microscopic in size compared with the pin head size of the longer wave thermal infrared, just from this they will impact matter differently. UV of course is proof that AGWSF shortwave heats matter… 😉
Here is an example of the misdirection from the DOE “ask a scientist” US government web site.
….
And there is the untruth. The color white will reflect most of the visible energy but the reason we see a color is because all the visible wavelenghs are absorbed except the specific colored light that is reflected. That is a red ball will absorbed the other colors and bounce the red light.
But for them “absorption” equals ‘creating heat’. They do this all the time, mix up properties and processes because they’re working to the meme that visible actually converts to heat when “absorbed” even in colours, (so what isn’t reflected is creating heat). But light is light and light is not hot and light does not have the necessary energy levels to move the atoms/molecules into vibration which is what heats stuff up. They just won’t let light be itself and so can’t tell the difference between heat and light.
The “absorbed” meme they’re fixated on is quite funny, because memed into their Greenhouse Effect scenario which says that the atmosphere is transparent to visible and so not absorbed therefore does not heat up the atmosphere, and there’s no reply yet when I point out that actually visible light is being absorbed by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen, which is what reflection/scattering is, so how much is visible heating the not transparent atmosphere because they’ve forgotten to include it in their budget..?
Back to the ocean.
Yes water is mostly transparent. It is the compounds dissolved in it and the particles suspended in it that do the absorbing of whatever light is transmitted just like that red ball. That is why very clean water has high visibility and other water has differing visibilities. (DON”T cave dive without a safety line)
Here is the absorption of water as ice, liquid and vapor: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
The memes deliberately confuse the meanings of “absorbed” and “transparent” in the technical and general uses so they have a really hard time getting out of that trap because they think the ocean “absorbs” visible so water can’t be “transparent”, as well as giving the properties of one thing to another in that water is transparent and the atmosphere not.
But anyway, as interesting as it is diverting, the point is that that shortwave do not have the power to heat matter and they’ve taken out of their budget the real power of the Sun which can and does heat the Earth.
They do not include the direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, and that is, quite frankly, so ludicrous it’s an embarrassment. Like backradiation from a colder atmosphere heating up the hotter earth..
Gunga Din,
joelshore says: “I’m not the one bringing politics into it.” And down is up, evil is good, and gnorance is strength. If I had a nickel for every time joelshore used ‘ideology’ to attack honest scientific skeptics, I could have a night out on the town.
And as I’ve regularly pointed out, if it were not for his own psychological projection joelshore wouldn’t have much to say. Examples of projection from just one joelshore post above: “…garbage science…” [that is the perfect definition of evidence-free CAGW]; “…what you want to believe…” [Earth to joel, you are the true believer here]; “…Heartland and it’s minions and fellow travelers…” [fellow travelers means useful idiots, thus more joel projection] “…politics has corrupted basically all the respected scientific organizations…” [Prof Lindzen says the same thing], “…respected scientific organizations” [joel left out the prefix ‘formerly’]; “…patiently explaining the science as it is understood…” [understood? heh. Not by joel], “…all of the deceptions and falsehoods that are put out by the anti-science crowd…” [classic projection from one of the pseudo-scientific cheerleaders of the anti-science crowd].
All of that baseless opinion comes from the same guy who cannot provide any evidence of his globaloney scare. Cognitive dissonance always explains joelshore. He is as detached from reality as his hero Algore.
Smokey says:
May 14, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Gunga Din,
He is as detached from reality as his hero Algore.
=============================================
That Al Gore face would be the perfect one for the second billboard: “Since ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Al Gore’s bank account has increased by $200+ Million. The real Hockey Stick”
HenryP says:
May 14, 2012 at 10:40 am
I will be waiting, right here, for anyone who “believes” that earth is still warming.
Apparently many “believe” it, but it cannot be shown to be true, at least over the last 10 to 15 years. See the following.
With the UAH anomaly for April at 0.295, the average for the first third of the year is (-0.09 -0.112 + 0.108 + 0.295)/4 = 0.05025. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly of 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year.
With the RSS anomaly for April at 0.333, the average for the first third of the year is (-0.058 -0.12 + 0.074 + 0.333)/4 = 0.05725. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 21st. This compares with the anomaly of 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year.
With the GISS anomaly for April at 0.56, the average for the first third of the year is (0.34 + 0.39 + 0.46 + 0.56)/4 = 0.4375. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 13th. This compares with the anomaly of 2011 at 0.514 to rank it 9th for that year.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for March at 0.305, the average for the first three months of the year is 0.239. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 18th. This compares with the anomaly of 2011 at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year.
So on all four of the above data sets, for their latest anomaly, the 2012 average is colder than their 2011 average value.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 7 months to 15 years and 6 months. Following is the longest period of time (above10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (For any positive slope, the exponent is no larger than 10^-5, except UAH which was 0.00055083 per year so this one really cannot be considered to be flat.)
1. RSS: since November 1996 or 15 years, 6 months (includes April)
2. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3months
3. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 2 months (includes April)
4. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 7 months (includes April)
5. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months
6. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 5 months (includes April using GISS. See below.)
See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.16/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend
For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of Hadcrut3 from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of Hadcrut3 from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0055 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 5 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with GISS gives the same conclusion, but includes April in addition.) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000.9/trend
Werner Brozek says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/12/tisdale-an-unsent-memo-to-james-hansen/#comment-985514
Henry says
Thanks for that summary, it is great and it definitely tells a story.
what I would like to know from you
#) you are looking at absolute values? What is the precision and accuracy?
#) how often are instruments calibrated and how is it done?
#) you are looking at a variable that hides a lot of energy. Remember that a lot of energy is stored in the oceans, in the vegetation and simply in the weather and weather systems (hydrological cycles). It might take quite a few years before you see what is actually happening.
In my case, I also happened to look at your variable. If you look at my table for Means, I get
-0.2 degree K (cooling) of earth in total if taken globally since the beginning of the century.
I guess there might be an error of about [0.1] K in the various thermo couples, so take your pick:
either way it is not getting warmer on earth…..
What worries me is the development of a variable that gives me more information:
the maximum temperatures. We can say that this variable is more directly related to the heat from the sun coming through the atmosphere.
From looking at the maxima we can see a gradual decline in maximum temperatures from 0.036 degrees C per annum (over the last 37 years) to -0.016 (when taken over the last 12 years).
http://letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
If we plot the global measurements for the change in Maxima: 0.036, 0.028, 0.015, -0.016 against the relevant time periods, it can be shown that the best fit for the curve is given by
y= 0.0454 ln(x)-0.1278 (R2=0.994).
At 0 (zero) when there was no warming or cooling we find x=16.7 years. From my sample of weather stations I can therefore estimate with reasonable accuracy that the drop in maxima started somewhere during 1994 (2011-17=1994).
The observed cooling trend could still accelerate further. In fact, if the plot y= 0.0454 ln(x)-0.1278 (R2=0.994) holds true, and by taking it to the present time, it can be shown that we could already be cooling by as much as 0.1 degree C per annum.
(We are still talking about maxima now!)
The earth system may still have some stored energy to counter balance this, but eventually – if we don’t keep an eye on this and if we keep looking at the wrong figures – we might be in for a bit of a surprise once that stored energy runs out……
Periods of cooling in the past have usually been associated with crop failures and subsequent periods of poverty and starvation. I am just hoping that the current cooling trend will come to end sooner than the projected 2030 by Orssengo.
Smokey says:
May 14, 2012 at 6:47 pm
And as I’ve regularly pointed out, if it were not for his own psychological projection joelshore wouldn’t have much to say. Examples of projection from just one joelshore post above: “…garbage science…” [that is the perfect definition of evidence-free CAGW]; “…what you want to believe…” [Earth to joel, you are the true believer here]; “…Heartland and it’s minions and fellow travelers…” [fellow travelers means useful idiots, thus more joel projection] “…politics has corrupted basically all the respected scientific organizations…” [Prof Lindzen says the same thing], “…respected scientific organizations” [joel left out the prefix ‘formerly’]; “…patiently explaining the science as it is understood…” [understood? heh. Not by joel], “…all of the deceptions and falsehoods that are put out by the anti-science crowd…” [classic projection from one of the pseudo-scientific cheerleaders of the anti-science crowd].
All of that baseless opinion comes from the same guy who cannot provide any evidence of his globaloney scare. Cognitive dissonance always explains joelshore. He is as detached from reality as his hero Algore.
Propaganda/brainwashing and psychological techniques and defences – to accuse using the same phrases used in the arguments against them. Like ‘skeptics funded by big oil’ when it is they who are so funded. It means they avoid the actual, truthful, analyses of themselves and the concepts they’re pushing either because afraid to take the information on board which would very likely be an emotional train wreck as mind implodes from having a belief destroyed, because of the phenomenon of an emotional attachment to an idea self-defining the person (destroy the idea and you’re destroying the person, so an automatic subconscious defence strategy), or because they know very well that the concepts they’re pushing are junk science and are consciously playing the game of spreading the disinformation and bolstering those unconsciously brainwashed who pick up the new defence memes and repeat them mindlessly. Like moving the goal posts, straw men and so on, all avoidance strategies for whichever reason.
The “I think, therefore I am’ pit for the unwary defining themselves by their thoughts. We are, therefore we think is the antidote to this – I am therefore I think. We can hold contradictory thoughts without believing either of them, for example, which is an essential base of scientific thought.
HenryP says:
May 15, 2012 at 12:21 am
Thanks for that summary, it is great and it definitely tells a story.
You are welcome! As for the other questions you are asking, I am strictly going by WFT and do not know their precision and accuracy. However it only has 95% confidence levels for the BEST data. If it had 95% confidence levels for other data, I could do more things such as say that at the 95% level, so and so does not show warming for this many years. But until then, I will just indicate for how long the slopes are flat.
I am just hoping that the current cooling trend will come to end sooner than the projected 2030 by Orssengo.
Good point! On the other hand, I would hate to see what would happen if the cooling trend stopped tomorrow and the “scientists” decided we have to put much more effort into fighting global warming. According to our daily paper, see:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/20teeth/6610945/story.html
“If there is one thing on which all federal parties and all national political leaders are agree, it is that they “believe the science” on climate change. They believe that the Earth is warming, they believe its effects are on balance malign, and they believe it is caused by human activity. As such, they believe it can and should be mitigated by human action, namely by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
Werner Brozek says
if the cooling trend stopped tomorrow and the “scientists” decided we have to put much more effort into fighting global warming. According to our daily paper…..on climate change….
Henry says
Don’t worry. We have an old saying that goes like: although the lie is very fast, eventually the truth will overtake him. Global cooling is a bit worrying to me and should be to others as well, as it could cause widespread crop problems. Obviously there must be people that know, which is why the “global warming” threat has already been changed to “climate change’ . In that way even colder weather can be easily somehow explained. I think that the cooling trend would probably show the greatest in Antarctica but somebody is trying to hide the data. Don’t forget that people on both sides of the debate might have some financial benefit the longer the “debate” just carries on.
Like I said, if you are a farmer, better check the trend at your local weather station and base your decision on the trend you find there on whether to sow or not to sow. (just duplicate my method)
I think Orssengo’s oscilliation could be a little wide, meaning that I think that the worst might be over by 2020. I wonder what he would have to say about that.
HenryP says:
May 15, 2012 at 10:30 am
Obviously there must be people that know, which is why the “global warming” threat has already been changed to “climate change’.
I agree. But exactly how will ‘climate change’ be fought?
I am well aware of the reasoning behind ocean level rise due to warming. But it is a total mystery to me why CO2 alone should have any huge effect on changing the climate. In the absence of warming, how does CO2 alone cause frosts in Florida; how does CO2 alone cause ocean levels to rise; how does CO2 alone cause hurricanes to be more severe; etc?
Werner says
But it is a total mystery to me why CO2 alone should have any huge effect on changing the climate.
Henry says
it does not have any effect, except stimulate more greenery (growth),
which actually does trap some heat (look at Las Vegas, which used to be desert, especially in my Minima table)- a little bit –
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
however, with the weather we are all on a curve
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
…..better be prepared (to catch) when that (curved ball) is coming your way…
Regards.
Henry
Thanks, Anthony.
Henry says
we are all somewhere on this (weather) curve:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
Orssengo calculates the top (of warming) at around 2003
truth is that I calculated the top of the warming at around 1994/1995:
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
That means it could be that Orssengo’s curve must be shifted a bit to the left
meaning that global cooling could be over it bit earlier than 2030
(I hope)
joeldshore says:
May 14, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Gunga Din says:
PS I never even heard of Heartland until the billboard thing came up.
———————————————————-
Well, that’s kind of strange, isn’t it?….
I’d like to correct myself. I HAD heard of Heartland before. The first time I recall hearing of them was when Gleick and the phony memo thing came up. It had slipped my mind when I made the comment Joel is responding to. Sorry. I was not making any attempt to deceive.
Gunga Din says:
May 14, 2012 at 2:04 pm
I think it was Newton that said, “Science is thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”
I’m not a Creationist. I do believe (and study) the Bible. (The first “was” in Genesis 1:2 is the Hebrew frequently translated “It came to pass”.)
Whatever one chooses to believe about how we got here, we are here. We are surrounded by physical laws that govern the physical world we live in. That’s what this site deals with. Anthony has drawn a sometimes fuzzy line that I’m not willing to cross here. Meet me one the street, that’s another story. (I once got sucker punched by a Hare Krishna!)
=======================================================
I’d like to clarify something. If you went to an animal rights site and said you were a vegetarian because you only ate eggs and cheese, someone there would probably say you weren’t really a vegetarian because you ate animal products even though you didn’t meat.
I read a book called “Scientific Creationism” around 40 years ago. The author believed that Genesis 1:1 occurred 6000+ years ago and that, as created, “the Earth was without form and void”. (KJV wording).
The word “was” in that phrase would better be translated “became”. Because of that, the author would not say I was a “Creationist” even though I do believe “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
HenryP says: @ur momisugly May 15, 2012 at 10:30 am
….Don’t worry. We have an old saying that goes like: although the lie is very fast, eventually the truth will overtake him. Global cooling is a bit worrying to me and should be to others as well, as it could cause widespread crop problems. Obviously there must be people that know, which is why the “global warming” threat has already been changed to “climate change’ …..
____________________________________
Henry, I have followed both CAGW and world farming regulation for years. I am convinced big players are well aware of the fact the earth is cooling. Heck cycles of warming and cooling have been known to exist for 200 yrs. 200 years ago astronomer William Herschel observed a correlation between wheat prices and sunspots. In 1853 Wolf discovered an 83 year cycle. Gleissberg also discovered the same 80 to 90 year cycle around 1938. Gleissberg published so many papers on the subject that the cycle is called the Wolf-Gleissberg cycle. see http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
On top of that is the there have been tons of papers written on the Milankovitch cycle. The critical ones were written in the 1970’s when Shackleton et al found data corresponding to the Milankovitch cycles in sea bed sediment cores. In defense of Milankovitch – Roe (2006) is a critical new paper that refines the theory by using the derivative ,that is the rate of change, to get a much closer fit. Newer papers listed here => http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/papers-on-the-milankovitch-cycles-and-climate/
If you switch the subject to farming you can see there has been a consolidation in the control of our food supply. The World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture (WTO AoA) written by the VP of Cargill (privately owned grain traders) being a major facilitator.
Here is one paper.
THE CORRUPTION OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE
And another from Purdue University 2002 (note WTO AoA was pasted in 1995)
Now we are seeing a new situation where corporations are doing a “farmland grab” NAFTA targeted Mexico with a resulting 75% reduction in farm family owned land. The USA is the next target with the Food Safety Modernization Act passed in 2010 and the most recent blow, (April 27th, 2012) USDA submitted it Animal Disease Traceability Rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for final review. More than 25% of world’s food exports comes from USA Farms. African countries must import 25% of their food.
For an example of how devistating these regs are to farmers.
Farmer Faces Possible 3-year Prison Term
USDA Shut Kids Rabbit Business: Family Facing $4 Million in Fines for Selling Bunnies
We are getting squeezed from several directions and I doubt that those funding the squeezing believe in CAGW. As usual follow the money. The Carbon Tax is just one of the money makers spun from CAGW.