It seems the debate is getting a bit testy in the land of watercress sandwiches and doilies*.
“Man-made global-warming hypothesis is dead in the water” says Godfrey Bloom MEP, but it gets better, he points a finger at the chairman and shouts “denier”.
Watch.
h/t to Tom Nelson
* Some people thought I was referring to Belgium. No, I was referring to the EU Parliament in Brussels. I had lunch service there in a roomful of skeptics while Climategate raged in my mind, and I couldn’t say anything until it was verified. I recall the lunch service because it seemed to heighten the surreal situation I found myself in. – Anthony
@ur momisugly Mark says:
April 17, 2013 at 12:11 pm
You should refer to the various links provided on this site.
I am somewhat surprised that someone who has spent hours looking into this is not aware of the reference points used.
And I’m somewhat surprised at the hostile tone that exists here which is really unecessary so you will be pleased to know that I won’t be back with my lack of understanding and stupid questions/observations. Don’t you forget to recycle now.
All the best
Mark.
“Mark says:
April 17, 2013 at 12:11 pm
It was my impression that satellite data is used to measure temperature.”
There are also several land based surface temperature measurements. Google Hadley, Gisstemp.
@ur momisugly richardscourtney says:
April 17, 2013 at 11:23 am
Gareth Phillips:
Your ridiculous post at April 17, 2013 at 10:30 am begins saying
Richard, you are patently someone who cannot debate without using insults so I will leave it at that.
NO! you are patently someone who has no desire to debate and only posts to disrupt debate.
You have repeatedly posted falsehoods.
I have refuted your falsehoods.
And you have continued to repeat the falsehoods without addressing my refutations.
I will ‘bite my tongue’ at that.
Richard
————————————————————————–
Richard, all I have said is that while you accept with good reason that warming has stopped over the last 16 years, a supporter of the other side would say, ah yes, but over the last 30 years it has warmed on an overall basis compared to say 1983. I know this is not what the projections models or anything else would say. But the records and observations confirm that both observations are correct, but never shall the twain meet it appears.
What on earth is so dreadful and upsetting about saying that? I am genuinely puzzled by your anger at myself and others. Where is my falsehood?Why is it disruptive? Does this post in itself make you angry? And if so, why?
I’m happy to provide references if that helps. These may be useful to start with. http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/
Gareth Phillips:
I see you are continuing your disingenuous trolling in your post at April 17, 2013 at 2:02 pm where you – presumably to mislead others – say and ask me
No, you are not “puzzled” and you have answers to each and every of those questions because I stated the answers in my post addressed to you in this thread at April 17, 2013 at 9:16 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/15/fireworks-in-the-eu-parliament-over-the-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-1278101
I enjoy debate with those who disagree with me because I learn from it. And I disdain trolls whose clear intention is to inhibit such debate.
I can only repeat, stop trolling.
Richard
For those interested (and I doubt it, as many of theosters here only wish to hear one side of the argument, rather than discuss all aspects of this very important issue).
The global warming pausing meme is nonsense. The period of time to establish a pause or not statistically has not passed to make that statement.
Gareth, put your faith in science. It has built in BS filters and the truth will eventually surface. Also look at the entirety of evidence (which I see you have alluded to in reference to cherry picking data).
The many fields of science are pointing to a changing climate. Fish migrating to areas they have never been seen before as it was previously to cool, glaciers are retreating, forests being destroyed by bark beetles whose population are exploding as winters are no longer cold enough to cull the population. To unusual and severe weather patterns where ‘warm weather records broken’ exceed ‘cold weather records broken’ by a factor of almost 3.
These changes would be no more than something of interest to unaffected observers to see what happens, but unfortunately we are not unaffected. My suggestion to you is to ask a farmer you know, how the changes have affected the way they grow food. Can they continue to provide food with certainty and good quality. Talk to a insurance company to see how these changes are affecting premiums and whether they have stopped covering certain events such as floods and fire. Or whether they are demanding premium holders reduce risk by taking some remedial action to minimise loss.
You are being affected, it is subtle, and hardly noticeable, but it is incremental. You will continue to affected as the globe continues to accumulate heat because of the increase in greenhouse gases.
Moe:
I suspect you are displaying your ignorance on this occasion, and this time you are not providing a deliberate falsehood in your post at April 17, 2013 at 2:47 pm which says.
Global warming stopped at least 16 years ago. This is NOT a “meme”. It is an empirical fact. And the statistical significance of a trend is defined by the variance of the data set and not the length of a time series.
For those who like graphs, this is the global temperature for the last 16 years as determined by RSS (satellite) and HadCRUT (thermometers).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend
And I provided a simple explanation of confidence limits and what they do and don’t indicate at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/03/proxy-spikes-the-missed-message-in-marcott-et-al/#comment-1267380
Richard
Moe:
re your post at April 17, 2013 at 3:08 pm.
You would not recognise the presence of science if it could start pounding you on the head with a hammer.
Richard
Mark says:
April 17, 2013 at 12:38 pm
You shouldn’t take offence! The site is generally not like that at all. To be honest, various folk have been here before pleading ‘ignorance’ and asking what seem rather inane or mundane questions but doing it deliberately to derail threads or simply annoy those who do know some of the stuff !
This blog has millions of visitors and many many posters – the vast majority of whom are intelligent and knowledgeable. A prime reason for this blog being better than others is that it allows both sides of the argument to be heard – despite essentially being a skeptical blog. Try being a ‘skeptic’ and asking questions as Skeptical Science (an alarmist blog!) – your posts would be unlikely to be even listed!
Here, you do have a voice – and you will receive help and advice on where to go and what to read to educate yourself and then ask yourself the questions – but as I said, many posters are a little tired of bots trolls and bot-like responses/posts!
I came here 4 years ago with the same questions – although I had already done much reading and was indeed an ‘accepter’ of the media consensus because of the alleged scientific ‘proof’. I can honestly say, that as a scientist, after a few days of my own research and reading – I became increasingly skeptical of the ‘story’ we are being told/sold!
regards
Kev
Richard, how droll. It is interesting that deniers have been bagging the climate models since they first came out. Now the surface temperature is getting close to the bottom range of these predictions, the models are acceptable. Come on you can’t have it both ways.
It is interesting that you are linking global warming with the surface temperature only. The surface (land and a small amount of atmosphere) only holds a little amount of heat compared to the oceans. The oceans have been gaining considerable heat, but in your blinkered views, this is ignored. Still it suits your purposes to limit your definition of global warming and can’t stand it when your error is pointed out.
As for statistical significance, we have been through this before and I am surprised that you would expose your statistical ignorance again for all to see. Still, it has been a while and there is probably a new audience that needs to see your lack of credibility so go ahead.
An interesting question is why, according to the data cited above, global warming has accelerated in the last few years whilst at the same time the net climate forcing has apparently not risen. Are we seeing increasing natural feedbacks? Is the acceleration seen in the ocean heat content data spurious? Has the negative aerosol forcing not increased as much as estimated? This is the kind of genuinely interesting and unresolved issue which ought to be discussed here.
Icarus, I want to make comment on two of your points.
1. Heat being absorbed into the oceans is not a negative feedback. Heat is accumulating there and there is no mechanism in warming the water will reduce the heat accumulating. A negative feedback would somehow slow or reverse the heat retention of the earth and that is not happening.
2. I suspect that your point about increased aerosols has been putting a dampened on surface temperatures. A similar slow down in the rate of temperature rise during 40s to 70s corresponded to a huge increase in coal utilisation and therefore aerosol production. Unfortunately the aerosols are not as long lived in the atmosphere as co2, so they only give temporary relief before the onward march of cooking the planet continues.
richardscourtney says:
April 17, 2013 at 2:13 pm
Gareth Phillips:
I see you are continuing your disingenuous trolling in your post at April 17, 2013 at 2:02 pm where you – presumably to mislead others – say and ask me
I am genuinely puzzled by your anger at myself and others. Where is my falsehood?Why is it disruptive? Does this post in itself make you angry? And if so, why?
No, you are not “puzzled” and you have answers to each and every of those questions because I stated the answers in my post addressed to you in this thread at April 17, 2013 at 9:16 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/15/fireworks-in-the-eu-parliament-over-the-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-1278101
I enjoy debate with those who disagree with me because I learn from it. And I disdain trolls whose clear intention is to inhibit such debate.
I can only repeat, stop trolling.
Richard
Thank you Richard for demonstrating how a Troll behaves. They insult and will not answer any question however specific. They take exception at any imagined slight and pour bile and anger into inappropriate directions despite the best efforts of other posters.Their only goal is to insult and hurt. You are a wonderful example of that dysfunctional behaviour. In common with others I have explained myself clearly, all you seem to be able to do is hurl abuse. You do not enjoy debate, you enjoy abusing others as you have so clearly demonstrated. NHS direct may be helpful.
If you want to start looking at how to respond in an appropriate way look at the other responses to my posts. In the meantime keep your hate filled bile to yourself.
Moe says:
April 18, 2013 at 12:06 am
re your post:
Point 1:
Heat going into and out of the oceans is all part of the natual variability. If you consider what happens if the earth is cooling – e.g. as per the 70’s – OHC will likely be dropping as it transfers heat into the atmosphere. Hence, the OHC will be a negative feedback if the surface is ‘net’ warming, and a positive feedback if it is ‘net’ cooling. It would be reasonable to argue that OHC is simply rising since its last ‘cooling’ if you see what I mean. The OHC is just one big reserve of stored energy and must lag behind any external change due to the slow rate at which it warms/cools. Indeed, it could be so slow that the fluctations we see in OHC are actual from climate happenings from many decades or even centuries ago! (I don’t necessarily agree with this – just that the size of the oceanic mass and its temperature is extremely unlikely to be ‘measurable’ – and the current OHC measurements are almost as much of a fabrication as the surface temp data!)
@moe, thanks Moe, interesting post.
As a smallholder I’ve noticed climate changes over the last few years which mean I can no longer grow crops which would thrive a few years ago. I’ve noticed changes in wildlife and in the wellbeing of our bees. It’s complex I know, but most of the changes are the result of wetter summers and colder winters. For me climate change is real and obvious, however it has manifested in a cooling rather than a warming. CET data this year seems to confirm this. No doubt many people will say with a degree of reliability that this is normal climate variability, possibly, but each year that produces more extreme weather makes this less and less likely in my view. So subjectively, climate change is obvious regardless of the fact that atmospheric temps have more or less stabilised for some time now.
I wonder if warming Atlantic water is taken into deep levels by the thermohaline circulation which melts arctic ice prior to it’s descent into deeper waters. Whatever is happening, personally I cannot see how the melting of Arctic ice cannot but affect our weather in Eurasia, but that subjective!
Trolls posting as Gareth Phillips and Moe:
Gareth Phillips, I wrote
I cited the clear and specific answers I had already provided and supplied a link so they could be accessed with one click of a mouse.
You have replied to that with another blatant falsehood, saying
It seems that lies are your only stock in trade.
Moe, the idea that you do or could understand scientific principles is laughable. Your only ability – which you constantly display – is to copy ‘soundbites’ from warmunist ‘echo chamber’ blogs.
Richard
Thanks Moe. I probably didn’t explain it very well. What I meant is this:
The ocean heat content studies cited above find that global warming has accelerated in recent years – for example, Levitus 2012 finds a rise in OHC of around 10^23 Joules over the last decade, twice that of the previous decade.
At the same time, the growth rate of CO₂ forcing has declined slightly – i.e. we are putting more CO₂ into the atmosphere, but the airborne fraction has declined, so the CO₂ forcing hasn’t been rising quite as steeply since about 1990. This means that the net climate forcing, according to GISS, hasn’t risen since about 2000 –
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
We know that the existing planetary energy imbalance will cause continuing warming for many decades due to ocean thermal inertia, but we wouldn’t expect warming to be *accelerating* if the climate forcing hasn’t increased for 13 years. That’s the puzzle.
One explanation could be that the acceleration in OHC accumulation isn’t real. Another could be that it’s real, and that additional natural positive feedbacks have been kicking in to accelerate global warming despite the known forcings being level for 13 years (Arctic ice albedo perhaps?). A third explanation might be that we have overestimated the negative forcing from atmospheric aerosols – since this is largely assumed or estimated rather than measured, perhaps it’s not been offsetting the greenhouse gas forcing as much as expected in recent years, meaning that GISS are underestimating the net climate forcing.
I don’t know what the answer is, but it seems like an interesting question, and one I haven’t seen addressed anywhere.
Hope this makes more sense…
Richard, I see that others have pointed out that you do get nasty when people disagree with you. Normally this would be a pity as we only learn by engaging others with different opinions. In your case it doesn’t really matter as your opinions are not worth considering and your condescending rages only re-inforces the fact that you accept what we have presented to you but you cannot respond in any other manner as it would make you look foolish.
As for me copying soundbits, I have no idea what you are talking about. I read widely and and observe the natural environment. I have observed changes in nature all over the world and know something is going on. I also have a background in agriculture and have many relatives still ‘on the land’ and know how easily food security can be lost through only minor changes in growing conditions. (See Gareth’s comments above).
Climate change is a serious issue with dire consequences.
You intolerance to a contrary opinion says more about your own background and obligations than you willingness to find the truth.
Moe:
At April 18, 2013 at 2:28 am you assert
NO!
I get nasty and am intolerant when people deliberately and repeatedly tell lies.
Clearly I am both intolerant and nasty concerning your post I am answering. And I am outraged by the lies promulgated by your nasty little tag-team of trolls on this thread.
For example, your tag-team has come on this thread claiming that global warming is continuing.
THAT CLAIM IS A LIE
All data sets show global warming stopped at least 16 years ago.
The cessation of global warming
is not dismissible as not significant (it IS statistically significant),
it is not a “meme” (it is an empirical fact), and
it is not ignorable because the missing heat may be hiding (e.g. under the bed or at the bottom of the oceans).
And I am angry that your team has deflected this thread from its subject because it can only encourage trolls to deflect other threads.
Richard
Useful posts Moe, I find your posts thought provoking and of interest. Don’t be discouraged! Also well done Kev and Icarus, I wish I had your patience and tolerance.
Moe says:
April 18, 2013 at 2:28 am
Now, physically and in the real world – NOT that of extrapolated 7 or 10 degree of “future” climate change, but in the real world that we live in, “climate change” is (at most) 0.2 degrees C from the mid-70’s. Doesn’t matter what you may “think” it has changed, the measured changed globally since the mid-1970’s is no more than 0.2 degrees. Further, none of that 0.2 degrees change has occurred since 1998-1997.
So, despite your “feelings” about what you think you have observed, the effect of CAGW is zero in your measurable life. Now, in your fears and your emotional life? THOSE have been propagandized and politicized.
Since that time, however, thanks 100% to the increase in CO2 in the world’s atmosphere, EVERY green plant on earth is growing 12% to 27% faster, stronger, more drought-resistant, larger, heavier and more productively.
Name ONE qualitative specific, exact, measurable, disadvantage your so-called “climate change” has to a farmer, rancher, forester, or gardener.
richardscourtney says:
April 16, 2013 at 5:14 am
From Werner Brozek’s recent article:
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 2 months. (goes to February)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since April 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to February)
3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November)
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to February)
5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat from March 1, 1997 to March 31, 2013, or 16 years, 1 month.
From those data points it appears that The Pause is at least 12 years old, but let us dig deeper into the observational data to see “The Pause” in “Earth’s Temperature”.
You revealed your misunderstanding/misuse of statistics in that thread and follow it up here.
Taking for example the UAH trend data quoted by Werner: 0.146±0.085 (1sd) since 1994,
that indicates ~3% probability that the slope is ‘flat’ over that time (i.e. zero slope) and ~40% probability that the trend exceeds 0.170. No more bait and switch about uniform distributions please.
I see the new format allows violations of the TOU.
@RACook
Name ONE qualitative specific, exact, measurable, disadvantage your so-called “climate change” has to a farmer, rancher, forester, or gardener.
———————————————————————————-
It may be a minor issue in the scheme of things, but due to the deterioration in the optimum climate in the UK, wetter in summer, colder in winter I can no longer grow certain crops that once did ok outside a greenhouse. They include Sweetcorn, Tomatoes, French beans and Courgettes. Most of my smallholder friends report similar problems. Some more traditional root crops do ok, Parsnips, Turnips as well as cabbages and broad beans. Our bees have more difficulty surviving the winter and honey production is getting more and more marginal. It may be natural variation in climate, but it’s been going on a bit long and according to our village elders, very odd and having significant negative impacts. It may be nothing to with climate change, arctic ice, Co2 solar variation or clouds, but something is happening, and it’s not good where we live.
RACookPE1978, fair challenge, let us leave alone the obvious ones of long periods of drought and frequent one in hundred year floods and pick something a little less well known. I am torn between the ruination of the cherry industry in southern New South Wales in Australia, where the winters are not cold enough for the cherries to set or the broad acre wheat farmers of north western Victoria where the change in rainfall patterns have made reaping the crops very difficult.
This is a subtle process but the net effect worldwide is that food stocks are very low and haven’t been this bad since before the green revolution some 40 years ago.
http://www.infowars.com/global-food-reserves-have-reached-their-lowest-level-in-almost-40-years/