Climate change: back to basics


9:34 am - December 20th 2009

by Andrew Adams    


      Share on Tumblr

Thanks to the Copenhagen summit and the fall out from the CRU hack the subject of Climate Change here has been the subject of much discussion recently, not least here at LC.

A lot of this has centered on “climategate”, the battle between “deniers” and “believers”, or got bogged down in arguments about hockey sticks, computer models, the medieval warm period etc., but I think it is worth going back to the scientific arguments for AGW from first principles.

Much of this has been touched on before at LC and some of it may seem overly basic – but I believe it is worth going over again because it is important to keep sight of the basic scientific case for AGW and to point out that many of the disccussions I mentioned above have little or no impact on this basic science.

Human CO2 emissions

There has been an increase in the level of several GHGs in the atmosphere, the most significant being CO2 – which has increased from 280ppm to 385ppm. That this is due to human activity, largely the burning of fossil fuels, is not in doubt – CO2 from different sources contains different carbon isotopes and by analysing their relative presence it is possible to determine the source of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. The notion that such an increase in CO2 levels as a result of the burning of fossil fuels would cause the earth’s climate to warm was first proposed in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius.

Climate sensitivity

Extensive research has been done to determine the extent to which increases in CO2 levels will cause warming. The net effect based on the known physical properties of CO2 is around 0.7°C for a doubling of CO2 levels (the relationship is logarithmic not linear) but there are certain feedbacks which will also affect the total amount of warming, for example as the atmosphere warms it holds more water vapour thus causing more warming. There is still some uncertainty about the exact effect of feedbacks but total climate sensitivity is believed to be in the range of 2-4.5°C for a doubling of CO2, and scientists are increasingly confident that the true value is close to 3°C. See this by someone working in this field.

So even before we consider what has actually happened to the earth’s climate there is a clear a priori case for AGW based on well established and understood principles of physics. It is also clear that it is not an idea conjured out of thin air for reasons of expediency (either scientific or political). The next question is therefore whether the climate has behaved in a way which is consistent with expectations.

Global temperatures are rising

Global temperatures increased by 0.7°C during the 20th century, with especially steep warming in the last 30 years of the century (see here) and the current decade is by far the hottest on record. Critics claim that warming has stopped over the last decade or so but this is misleading as they use 1998 as their starting point and this was an exceptionally hot year due to the strongest el Nino of the century. Use 1997 or 1999 as the starting point and you get a different picture, and it is clear that the overall trend is still upwards.

Temperatures have not risen overall since 2005 but this kind of short term variation is perfectly normal and we have also had in the last year both a La Nina and a solar minimum, which would be expected to cause a temporary lowering of temperatures. The Copenhagen Diagnosis shows that rising sea levels and the retreat of arctic sea ice are already at or outside the limits of the range predicted by the IPCC in its 2007 report.

Is there a link between rising temperatures and CO2 emissions?

The established science predicts that temperatures will rise and we can see this has been the case, which in itself gives us reason to believe that such a link is likely. However, there are other natural factors apart from GHGs which effect the climate – solar activity, small variations in the earth’s orbit, volcanic activity, aerosol emissions etc. In the early part of the century strong solar activity combined with low volcanic activity made a strong contribution to the warming which occurred up to around 1940.

There was then a period of stable or slightly cooling temperatures which can be linked to aerosol emissions. Warming then started again and there are no known factors other than increased CO2 levels which can account for this – solar activity has been low and volcanic activity relatively high so if anything we would have expected a slight cooling over this time. It should also be stressed that even if a plausible alternative explanation was found that would not make AGW go away – we would have a problem accounting for the excess energy in the climate system caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect.

So we now have the expected warming and no alternative explanation other than increased GHGs, but is there evidence which directly links warming to increased GHGs? Yes – as increased amounts of GHGs result in warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) it would be expected that there would be a resultant cooling in the stratosphere as less of the radiation emitted from the earth is reaching that part of the atmosphere. This outcome would not be expected with warming due to other factors such as solar forcing and has indeed been observed. Satellites have also observed a drop in emissions of IR radiation at the wavelengths absorbed by GHGs which is also consistent with an increased greenhouse effect, as is an observed increase in the amount of radiation at those wavelengths being reflected back to earth.

So is the science “settled”?

No. Climate science is a complex field and all scientists will readily admit that there are things we still have to learn. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have enough confidence in what we do know to say with a high degree of certainty that the earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause. I don’t claim the facts I have outlined are proof of this but I believe they do demonstrate that there is a clear scientific and evidential case for AGW.

The earth is warming, we have a theory based on well established physics which predicts that the earth will warm and explains the mechanism by which it will do so and none of the other known factors which influence our climate can explain it. If people are not totally convinced and want to find out more then I have no problem with that, here is a good place to start. But what I don’t believe is in any way credible is to claim that there is not a strong scientific basis for AGW or to suggest that it is a hoax or a conspiracy.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post. Andrew Adams is a fortysomething, leftish, and a West Ham supporter. He also works in banking, but despite these things, he's not totally disenchanted. He blogs at Mutantblog. Although unfortunately he is not a mutant.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Economy ,Environment ,Science

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Good article Andrew.

Batshit wingnuttery to begin in 10…9…8…

Richard North on why the Copenhagen failure is a success for the people who matter. You may disgree with him about the science and the potential danger to the planet, but his point is that that’s not what the deal was about :

We learn that the negotiations were “rescued from the brink of collapse” when delegates agreed to compromise on the two contending positions by keeping the Kyoto Protocol and devising another agreement to encompass the United States and its allies who have refused to ratify Kyoto.

This is nothing to do with the headline billions and all the rest. Nope, the deal is that the Kyoto Protocol is saved – which is what all the fuss was really about. That safeguards the carbon market and opens the way for it to expand to the $2-trillion level by the year 2020. Against that, even €100 billion is chump-change – you can buy countries with that sort of money.

Their deal in place, the kleptocrats and the Corporatocracy can go away happy and plan how to spend all their ill-gotten gains, leaving the leaders to grandstand, make their deals, shake hands and strut through their photo-sessions before jetting off in volumes of “carbon” to be greeted as saviours by their underwhelmed peoples.

As for saving the planet, well no-one really believes that greenie shit anyway … except the greenies, and they don’t matter. There is plenty of pepper spray left and no shortage of temporary detention space. Now that the money men have got what they came for, all the rest is theatre.

4. Dick the Prick

Don’t we want global warming anyway though? Cap and trade, hmm.. awesome idea!

It is a mistake to think that outlining the current state of climate science with clarity is going to convince any denialist. And the rest of us do not need convincing.

The denialist coalition does not have any coherent position. All they have is a series of disconnected and sometimes contradictory talking points which are used to institute a Gish Gallop against anyone appealing to the actual science.

On that basis, this kind of article just sets up a nice, inviting target for the feeble-minded and the conspiracists.

Quick Analysis

1.How can we stop India and China from getting richer?
2. How can we raise more taxes?
3. Can we create a “carbon” trading system that will make us trillions?

Before I say anything else, decent article, very clear and I totally agree with the science.

That said . . .

REFERENCES!!! anybody?! If you want to write about science you can’t simply add a link to a nice graph and act as if that proves your point. It may well do, but you still have to include, at the very least; where it came from, how the data was collected and by whom. In a debate this heated I also think a discussion of how bias was dealt with is very helpful in judging the reliability of the data. Of course this doesn’t have to be in your actual article but if you have decent sources then it can’t be that hard to include a link to them and if you don’t then you shouldn’t be writing at all.

In the climate change debate not only does everyone have an opinion but everyone presents that opinion as fact. Surely it is better to have a rock solid argument, clearly backed up by several reliable sources than to spend all our time trying to shout louder and sling more mud than the ‘deniers’?

Andrew Adams:

So with this article, you have clearly established that the globe is indeed warming due to CO2. After all, you have based your conclusions on the principles of physics.

Looks more like you are convincing yourself. Mr Adams, your convictions have been nurtured in poisoned soil. The facts which stand behind your seemingly harmless presuppositions, which stack up slowly in your mind one by one, to build an AGW system, the very facts are at question.

You get to the truth by questioning everything and assuming nothing – not by assuming a lot of things and questioning nothing.

Amusing that you mention James Annan’s paper. For of course he had the devil of a time getting it published (not even sure it did appear in the end) as it came out with a lower figure for climate senstivity than many others thought.

However, you do make one quite serious error in the above.

“well established physics”

We need to distinguish two very different things here.

“The net effect based on the known physical properties of CO2 is around 0.7°C for a doubling of CO2 levels (the relationship is logarithmic not linear”

That is physics , is well established and is correct.

” There is still some uncertainty about the exact effect of feedbacks but total climate sensitivity is believed to be in the range of 2-4.5°C for a doubling of CO2,”

That is not well established physics.

That is derived empirically (in Annan’s case via Bayesian methods, others through study of historical records etc).

We have a great deal too much of people saying that the latter is well established physics when it simply ain’t.

Tim,

I linked to Annan’s blog because I thought it gave an interesting insight into the question of how to calculate climate sensitivity, I don’t think it is the definitive paper on the subject. The best estimates on climate sensitivity are derived from a number of different papers. The “well established physics” determines that increased CO2 emissions will cause the earth to warm, the question of climate sensitivity determines the exact extent of the predited warming.

If I remember my science, the AGW theory is that rising CO2 levels will trap more of the sun’s heat energy in due to a theory that says reflected heat changes frequency, and this changed frequency doesn’t permeate CO2 as effectively as the original one. Hence, heat can’t escape and the world warms.

That makes sense but as you say 1998 was the warmest year thanks to a strong El Nino effect. My question would be, if the Earth is able to warm itself up internally (El Nino effects not being related the the sun) how can we be certain there isn’t some other effect, as yet undiscovered, that is also behind the rise in temperatures?

A Rajan

The facts which stand behind your seemingly harmless presuppositions, which stack up slowly in your mind one by one, to build an AGW system, the very facts are at question.

Which ones?

Bella,

It’s pretty clear that the temperature chart I linked to is NASA’s (although I probably should have made this clear in the article). It would be easy enough for anyone interested enough to check on their website for more details if they wanted it.I was intending to discuss recent temperature trends in more depth but wanted to keep the piece to a manageable length.

Mark M,

The effects of the el Nino are only temporary – temperatures will drop off again afterwards, as they did in 1999. My understanding is that the energy which causes a rise in surface temperatures during such events is already contained in the ocean, it’s just that there are changes to the way that the heat circulates between the surface of the ocean and the lower depths.

Amen! So reads the gospel of IPCC

Tim Worstall wrote:

“Amusing that you mention James Annan’s paper. For of course he had the devil of a time getting it published (not even sure it did appear in the end) as it came out with a lower figure for climate senstivity than many others thought.”

The climate sensitivity paper [1] was published 3 years ago, as you can see here (if your institution has access to GRL) or you can read an open access pre-print here (from the first line of JA’s blog post).

You write: “For of course he had the devil of a time getting it published”: I think it started life as a Comment on the Frame et al. paper [2]. However, this illustrates a problem with publishing Comments in general, not with climate science in particular – as Rick Trebino [3] could tell you.
The stand-alone paper seems to have gone thru’ peer review pretty painlessly.

[1] Annan, J.D. and J.C. Hargreaves (2006), “Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity”, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06704

[2] Frame et al.(2005), “Constraining climate forecasts: The role of prior assumptions”, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L09702

[3] “How to publish a scientific comment” Physics World, November 2006 p.56. Online [and longer] version here

Thanks for that. I remembered a series of posts he did about how they were having a tough time getting published, backs and forths with referees and ediotors , but couldn’t remember how it had all turned out.

By the way…..”if your institution”……nice thought but I’m not an academic of any stripe. Too dim for that to have happened.

Prisons, hospitals and psychiatric units also all qualify as ‘institutions’ 😉

Yes, I thought of trying for that joke myself but didn’t want to give any more ammunition to those who already thing I’m a “denialist nutter”.

It’s not really very good to accuse your opponents of cherrypicking a start date while choosing the temperature measure with the largest trend. You could, for example have chosen RSS for 1997 and got a overall cooling.

See Chip Knappenberger’s guide to cherrypicking to become more effective at this kind of thing.

What is interesting is how little evidence there is to support the IPCC’s claims of 2deg/century warming. All the indices are coming in much lower than that, no matter which start date you pick. (Start dates pre-2000 don’t count because that was when the forecasts were published).

That temperature has declined over the last decade is not in dispute. Most of the question of it rising overall this century depends on the accuracy of readings from station many of which were outside towns a century ago & are now in the suburbs. When Stephen McIntyre’s corrections for that were acepted by the US it turned out the warmest year in America was 1934 not 1998. The present CRU mess is ultimately because they refused to make the data requitred to check the rest of the world available & have now claimed they destroyed much of it because it was to expensive to put it in a store room.

Climate sensitivity is even more dubious. It is likely that the greatest feedback, ignored by alarmists, is that as there is more water in the atmosphere there will be more clouds & thus the Earth will reflect back more sunlight. If this is dominant climate sensitivity will have negative effect. The fact that we have had eras significantly warmer than now which have obviously not produced runaway warming suggests sensitivity is indeed under 1. Cold may be a different matter.

Yep – I’ve always though it revealing that the “urban heat island” phenomena is strangely absent from the warmers lexicon.

Matt @ 23

That is simply not true the urban heat island forms part of the science.

how can we be certain there isn’t some other effect, as yet undiscovered, that is also behind the rise in temperatures?

We don’t. It’s just that two such unknown effects would be needed:

– one to warm the planet as observed
– the other to cool it by an equivalent amount to cancel out the physical effect of C02 emissions

Obviously, you can replace either of those unknown effects by a conspiracy to fake the data. Or perhaps both – the conspiracy could cover up their faking of the data by using technology derived from UFO engines to induce artificial cooling.

I bet someone somewhere believes that last…

Jim the urban heat effect is indeed part of “the” science. As is the probablitiy an understood cooling feedback is likely to be greater than any largely unkown warming feedbacks.

It is just that both are deliberately ignored by warming alarmists.

As can be seen by anybody who notices that they have been ignored by the writer of this article.

@ 24 Yes, that’s my point ! 30 years ago weather stations were in the country, now, due to development many are in the suburbs, what’s being measured is the consequent increase in ambient temperature

Bishop HIll – the warming now isn’t so bad as later because of the buffering effect of oceans and ice. The last few years are still within the boundaries of expected warming, as discussed here:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/#more-2108

And of course yearly noise and the still remaining undertainties regarding feedbacks and stuff mean its not an exact science the same way calorimetry is, for example.

Neil #22 – stop slandering people and go and read something useful – you can get all the data you want from GISS, and it matches the CRU closely enough to put any doubts to rest. It had no effect on the global temperature or indeed on temperature trends:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm

Scientists can get it wrong. The likes of you won’t even allow them that normal human problem, despite yourself being wrong on almost everything I’ve ever seen you post on.

THe UHI is well known of and investigated by scientists. See here for more information:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

Page 243 of chapter 3 of the fourth IPCC report discusses the UHI if you want to go and read about it. Downloadable for free from their website.

Matt @ 27

Yes Matt and the science reflects that.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/population/article2abstract.pdf

Could it be that the real issues are independent of whether climate change is anthropogenic? Maybe focussing more on the putative causes and why they themselves, irrespective of climate change, are worth tackling, would be more successful.

Nope, they aren’t. If the current warming is natural, then it should reverse soon or something, either way we just have to adapt. But if it is our fault from business as usual, then given the likely outcomes, we need to change things so as to avoid the worst outcomes.

33. diogenes1960

The net effect based on the known physical properties of CO2 is around 0.7°C for a doubling of CO2 levels (the relationship is logarithmic not linear) but there are certain feedbacks which will also affect the total amount of warming, for example as the atmosphere warms it holds more water vapour thus causing more warming. There is still some uncertainty about the exact effect of feedbacks but total climate sensitivity is believed to be in the range of 2-4.5°C for a doubling of CO2, and scientists are increasingly confident that the true value is close to 3°C. See this by someone working in this field.

So the variability is between 0.7% and 3%…..does this not imply that there is work to do on the basic science…that the theory is in fact ….not very good?

Jim the urban heat effect is indeed part of “the” science. As is the probablitiy an understood cooling feedback is likely to be greater than any largely unkown warming feedbacks.

If the feedbacks were negative we would still be living in an ice age.

Oh, and we wouldn’t have had the warming we have seen since the 1970s

So the variability is between 0.7% and 3%…..does this not imply that there is work to do on the basic science…that the theory is in fact ….not very good?

An awful lot of work has been done on this which is why, as I said, total climate sensitivity is believed to be about 3°. And the uncertainty such as it still exists is on the upside as well as the downside – it could be higher.

How refreshing to see the AGW case put with such modesty and with the recognition that not everything is absolutely certain.

How very different in tone and presentation from the hectoring and moral posturing of the past ten years.

It would seem the sceptics are having an effect – on the quality of warmist rhetoric at least.

Guthrie says he disapproves of “slandering people” then says I have been wrong in almost everything I have said (though without specifying”. 🙂

He then follows up by implicitly, though not explicitly, denying that the GISS figures, corrected by Stephen McIntyre in a way they now accept, shows 1934 as the warmest year.

Both claims clearly represent the absolute pinnacle of honesty to which eco-fascists aspire & are wholly & obviously lies.

Andrew you have said there are no negative feedback effects. That means that either increased evaporation does not produce more clouds or that clouds aren’t white fluffy things that relect light. Perhaps you would care to correct this idiocy.

I am not a lawyer, but can a statement of fact be slanderous?
Moreover, as usual your ignorance shows- if thecorrection makes no appreicable difference to the temperature trends of global data, why get so worked up about it, unless your only aim is to cast doubt on all climate science, which is indeed what denialists seek to do.

As for negative feedbacks, you need to produce evidence that they exist. I’ve not seen a robust study indicating greater cloud cover, and there is still some discussion regarding the effects of high and low altitude clouds.

Diogenes1960 – the theory is perfectly good enough, but not all variables are known with exactness. How are you calculating your 0.7 and 3%?

Climate sceptics arguments are contradictory and confused. Certainly worthy of putting under the microscope.

More here http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-sceptics-are-like-alcoholics.html

41. santosh khatelsal

Early on when the climate change discussions started, some adventurous public relations activity successfully branded this as a “save the environment – save earth” campaign. It is certainly not one.

Were the discussions in Copenhagen aimed at saving the environment “for and in itself “or saving the environment as a means to save the human race?

In the millions of years that our planet has existed, it has seen many changes to its climate. These changes have inevitably resulted extinction of certain species and permitting others to grow, prosper and dominate the planet. Some view that humans came to dominate earth only as a consequence of dinosaur’s extinction, which in itself was a result of a massive climate change owing to an asteroid collision.

Life on earth will continue even if there is a radical change to earth’s climate, may be our species will diminish or fade away and others will emerge and dominate. It is important to view the climate change discussions in this light, “to save the human dominance of earth”

Many say that we have no scientific basis and others say “is science the epitome of all knowledge we have ever had?” Again no definite answers, only opinions some backed by maths and physics and some feel and belief, which is better of the two?? Are our maths and science not another approximation of reality at best, remember Newton’s gravity theory which no longer has any relevance post general relativity! I am sure we will have more opinions on this too. Our cumulative knowledge on this subject is thus effectively limited by our imagination at best.

Derek Wall’s link is to a blog by Mr D. Wall, a former Marxist who now finds, as one of the Green Party leaders, eco-Fascism more congenial. His article is mercifully unaffected by the ravages of fact & consists of saying that sceptics are like addicts so there that proves it together with this gem of natural understanding:

“Millions of years of geological activity have taken CO2 from the atmosphere, making the atmosphere breathable for mammals and temperate”.

Not geological but biological & millions is somewhat understating it.

Guthrie you almost shine like an intellectual beacon among such people.

Neil Craig,

I don’t claim that there are no negative feedbacks, but that the overall effect of feedbacks is positive.

now that’s what I call vested interests!!

cjcjcjcjcjc – still swallowing Russian and Saudi propaganda I see! You and the likes of Old Holborn are their useful idiots.

good article Andrew – but I did tell you it wouldn’t stop the bat-shit crazy deniers from trying to muddy the waters.

Andrew said “If the feedbacks were negative we would still be living in an ice age.”

Then he said “I don’t claim that there are no negative feedbacks, but that the overall effect of feedbacks is positive.”

So by the very highest standard of honesty to which Andrew aspires he has said that there are negative feedbacks & thus we are currently living in an ice age, presumably with Britain again covered by ice a mile deep. Also the highest standard of honesty to which fascists like Sunny & Derek & his party, if they refuse to acknowledge how totally corrupt Andrew is themselves ever, under any circumstances, aspire.

Sunny,

Russian and Saudi propoganda eh? How does this work for people like me who are now very unconvinced of man-made global warming (through reading and thinking, and noting that the apparently well-made network of Russian and Arabian deep-cover propogandists make some very good points), but who are also convinced that we need alternatives to fossil fuels quickly, for geo-political reasons?

Am I being fooled by Candian, Kazkh and Australian propoganda because I believe in nuclear fool (for those who haven’t checked Wikipedia, apparently these are the three largest miners of uranium)? Or have I made a rational choice on the basis of the evidence and made a decision of my own?

I am afraid Sunny your habit of throwing random insults about people’s intelligence and motives (notably only when they disagree with you) is worrying. You are clearly an intelligent man with the ability to debate. Why resort to the sort of put downs bullies use to close of discussion. You are clearly not afraid of argument and free thought (you run this site…) so why do you so often intervene with vapid and easily ignored throw away remarks that just make you look stupid? One does not have to take oil money to oppose expensive solutions to man-made global warming that, incidentally, will cause money to be given to Russian and probably Saudi Arabia. One can simply think for oneself.

And now I shall revert to the first person…

Awww,

Sunni is angry he won’t be able to get “funding” for a new eco project he had planned. Naughty deniers have gone and spoiled the gravy train.

Cheer up Sunni! There’s always Scientology or Hare Krishna

What’s with the ‘Sunni’ misspelling, then?

Well you know how Old Holborn feels about those pesky Muslims building their blasted evil minarets everywhere…

So by the very highest standard of honesty to which Andrew aspires he has said that there are negative feedbacks & thus we are currently living in an ice age, presumably with Britain again covered by ice a mile deep. Also the highest standard of honesty to which fascists like Sunny & Derek & his party, if they refuse to acknowledge how totally corrupt Andrew is themselves ever, under any circumstances, aspire.

Neil, I said “If the feedbacks were negative we would still be living in an ice age.” I think an honest reading of that would understand that I was referring to the overall effect of the feedbacks, but if it wasn’t sufficiently clear then I’m sorry.

Oh and by the way, climate scientists do accept that –

the GISS figures, corrected by Stephen McIntyre in a way they now accept, shows 1934 as the warmest year.

but, as you mentioned yourself, that refers only to the USA not global temperature. This kind of local variation is perfectly normal.

But it is only a local variation if the world figures produced by the CRU are accurate. The difference betwen the US & CRU figures is that under their FoI Act McIntyre was able to check & correct them whereas the CRU first refused to hand over data on the grounds that, as Prof Jones said “why should I hand it over to somebody who just wants to disprove it” & subsequently announced it had ben “lost”. Without checkable data the CRU findings are, at best, scientifically worthless & the US figures thus become the world’s best.

But GISS and CRU broadly agree and neither of them has 1934 as the hottest year globally.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

In fact using GISS instead of CRU is better for the AGW case as it shows more warming in recent years (mainly due to the different way it accounts for arctic temperatures) – it has 2005 as the hottest year instead of 1998.

Your linked graph does indeed shoe GISS in total agrement with CRU on world data. That is because Hansen of the American GISS has alaways used the CRU data for world figures. Since they are both using the same graph it is unsurprising they look the same. Hansen’s figures for the USA alos used to look like that till Stephen McIntyre checked them. Now to quote from GISS itself

“in the published GISS analysis, 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (but not globally)”

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/

OK? Now since the CRU figures are totally discredited Hansen will, in due course, have to give them up. At which point the US figures become, by default, the best we have though if what raw data exists can be obtained by McIntyre or some other honest scientists we may get some credible world figuires, which are likely to say 1934 as well & show no significant warming correlating to CO2

Keep calling me an Athiest as much as you like Sunni. I don’t mind a bit. Just don’t try and take any of my money to stop the “end of the world”. Then I will mind more than a bit.

Meanwhile, numerous failed predictions of the end of the world from another fundamentalist religion

http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm

And you call us batshit wingnutters

*roffle*

You give atheists a bad name troll.

Atheist? Nah, Unification Church is more the well-dressed wingnut’s style.

Neil Craig claims the CRU figures are totalloy discredited. This is a lie.

Neil,

1. As Guthrie points out, the CRU figures are not discredited.
2. If they were, why should we trust the US figures either?
3. And in any case they would still only represent less than 2% of the earth’s surface so it would still be silly to claim that 1934 was the hottest year globally.
4. You overstate the importance of the correction prompted by McIntyre – it made only a very small difference, and only to the US temperatures. It had no effect on the global temperature record.

I’m bored of having to prove climate change has a massive man-made element to Tory scum. We know the science is legit. It’s all there.

Can we talk now about what to do to address it? These Tory scumbags will never give a shit, so let’s move on and deal with the problem.

The massive amount of articles on LC proving that AGW is real just shows how inward-looking the blogosphere can be. We are just responding to the massive amounts of shit being written by people like Iain Dale and Dizzy.

Come on guys, let’s get with the picture. In the real world we have won the argument as to the cause. Let’s talk about the solution now.

We know the science is legit. It’s all there. Let’s talk about the solution now.

OK, John, as long as you’re sure, let’s go for it.

We’ll put a three trillion pound bet on red.

And you’re paying, right?

I mean, I presume your not asking me to pay?

You also understand that, even if it comes up red, we may not get paid out, yes?

That OK with you.

Right, let’s spin the wheel then.

BECAUSE WE WOULDN’T WANT JOHN BOOTH GETTING BORED WITH THE DEBATE, WOULD WE?

1 – To explain in simple terms – afor a theory to be scientific it must be “falsifiable” – that is to say it must be posible to prove it wrong. For the conclusions the CRU made to be scientific they must therefore be falsifiable & for that the initial data must be available. When Prof Jones refused to make the data available he ceased to be a scientist, ifv he ever had been & the global warming theory became merely religion. When he said he had destroyed it became irecoverable. “Discredited” is very kind word for “catastrophic global warming” & “lying religious fascist parasites” 4 kind words for it supporters.

2 – The US figures have now ben verified by a real scientist. Your question is like saying if astrology is wrong why should we believe relativity.

3 – It would be silly to claim it had definitely been proved but it would be much sillier to calim it wasn’t. The US figures are now the best we have, which may not be good but it is better than the sort of reality denialism John Booth demonstrates.

4 – Since it was only US figures it is obvious it applied to the US. So come up with some better figures for the rest of the world! There is no discernable reason why US the winds should observe US borders.That the difference between the highest & the 1998 temperature was very small only goes to show what a very small molehill this “catastrophic warming” scam has been built on.

No no. What we need to do is set up a World Government where no one is represented and no one can vote other than banks, oil companies, the very rich and other “vested interest” groups. (http://www.350.org/ for example. Owned by the Rockerfellers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_family)

Then we need to stop India and China very successfully working their way out of poverty in case they threaten our status quo.

They we need to make sure that EVERYONE is in debt by raising massive taxes then they will do exactly as they are told for generations

Then we can give nations that are failed States huge amounts of money for their dictators to squander on tribal genocide and Learjets and shopping sprees for their wives in Europe in return for complete control of their resources.

Right. So enslave the population of the world, keep them poor and take away their rights to a better future on the “promise” things will get better.

Isn’t that what religion already does? Isn’t that what Communism does? Isn’t that what Imperialism does?

Yeah, stick it all on the Red. What have 6 billion people to lose?

I look forward to the first “climate” war when the heavy armed Climate Crusaders try to take it all from the Heathens and convert them by the sword. Can’t be far off now. The book burning has already begun.

Hardly. The first volley in the climate war will be when climate scientists start getting shot or blown up outside their places of work.

Pagar @ 61

You know that is bollox and I know you that know that is bollox, so why carry on the charade?

We are not ‘betting’ on a roulette wheel with a fifty/fifty chance of being right. We are not dealing with a bet where you have no real way of predicting an outcome. We are looking at the culmination two hundred years of scientific research, collected data and observed evidence.

This isn’t some kind of half arsed theory written on the back of an envelop, this is a theory that has been checked, rechecked then checked again. The science that underpins Global Warming has been scrutinised from every conceivable angle and the theory has held firm. There is a consensus among the relevant scientists on the subject of Global Warming.

The deniers (and deniers they are, BTW) come up with ludicrous explanations to justify their denials. Everything from roman grape vines and the MWP, right through to sunspot activity to volcanoes and everything in between. No matter what the science says they are convinced that a large snowfall disproves the theory or that rain shows that the scientists are wrong or even that Governments inadequate response means the theory is wrong.

The entire scientific community have been slandered by the tin foil hat brigade who are convinced that they have contrived the whole thing in order to form a World Government and shackle the entire World in bondage! To what ends, I am not sure, but there you go.

Pagar, we are at different ends of the political spectrum, but I do think you are a reasonable man who has happened to got in with a pretty awful squad.

We both know that the deniers are not against the science per se. Most of them are totally ignorant of what the actual science is. We have the unedifying sight of someone plotting a graph of Oxford in order to disprove ‘Global’ Warming. They are against the implications that the science bring.

Surely you find such stupidity toe curlingly embarrassing?

Had the solution to Global Warming been slash welfare, international aid on strict population control then Matt, Craig, Monkton, the Mail et al would be leaping for joy. Had the increase in CO2 been caused by a huge Carbon dioxide machine in Tehran that the Iranians built to destabilize the West, Bush would have had it flattened half an hour after receiving the report.

Had the solution to global warming been anything other than cars and airplanes then we would not looking at glasses of water with ice, roman wine, skating on the Thames or sunspots or snow falls, we would be taking action against the evil perpetrators.

We are not looking at freedom tempered with responsibility. We are looking at the politics of sticking your fingers in your ears and ‘nar nar nenaring’ yourself an excuse to carrying on regardless.

Pagar, as far as I am concerned the Libertarian movement are just a bunch of greedy, selfish, hypocritical bastards who spout about personal responsibility for others, but can ignore any evidence that they are doing wrong just because it would disturb their lifestyle.

Prove me wrong

Neil Craig,

NASA’s data for global temperatures are not in question and their credibility is most certainly not dependent on the good opinion or otherwise of Steve McIntyre. If you have some actual evidence to the contrary then let’s see it.

Certainly not a half arsed theory Jim but entirely arse.

You object that some have had the temerity to bring up “Everything from roman grape vines and the MWP, right through to sunspot activity to volcanoes and everything in between” as counter evidence but are you saying that none of these are real because it is clear they are.

“Had the solution to Global Warming been slash welfare, international aid on strict population control then ….” And are you saying that if they had been put forward, along with masive new nuclar, as not “the” but a solution that you would have supported it. Or that these would not have been real solutions had there been a real problem. Indeed slashing the living standards of everybocy, hose on welfare as well as those employed, has always been part of the eco-Fascist agenda of people like you.

John Booth,

I do take your point. It would be easier if some parts of the MSM were not so intent on spreading misinformation (see the examples in the Express and Mail highlighted on this site) because this stuff makes it more difficult for those in power to get support for the big decisions which need to be taken. So I do think there is still value in trying to counter some of that idiocy, but we also have to accept that there are some people who will never agree and I guess we have to just leave them to carp on the sidelines and get on with discussion what to actually do about the problem. And I have to admit it would be much more difficult for me to come up with 1,200 words on that question.

Neil Craig @ 67

“as counter evidence but are you saying that none of these are real”

Where have I said that? We know these things and lots of other events are real, however, none of these things contradict the Global Warming theory do they?

The fact that the Earth has warmed up in the past due to natural causes, hardly disqualifies the existence of man made causes on this or any other occasion does it? They are not mutually exclusive.

Imagine a pathologist who investigates three dead bodies found in the street. He deduces that the first two died of a heart attack and a stroke respectively. He then concludes that because the first two died of natural causes that he can ignore the gaping bullet hole in the forehead and look for a natural cause based on the report of the first two corpses?

Nope, no can do.

Galileo’s championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed (at least outwardly) to the geocentric view that Man was warming up the Earth by breathing

After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of a slip blip in gloabl temperatures on Earth and MArs as well, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. Although he was cleared of any offence at that time, the Left and the oil funded Ecoloons nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as “false and contrary to Marxism” in February 1616,[10] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do when they threatened to take his funding away

When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found “vehemently suspect of heresy,” forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

Watching history repeat itself is such fun.

You are no Galileo…

“to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be
persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right.”

Robert Park

John Booth at #60 makes a very sensible request.
For those interested, Monbiot’s book “Heat” is a good starting place. There’s all sorts of reports out there by various people, you just have to go look for them.
My summary of what we’ll need to do is – more nuiclear plants, unfortunately. Ramp upthe renewables now, and get every house that can beproperly insulated so treated. Also something has to be done regarding fuel efficiency of trucks and buses and suchlike.
Over the next few decades we will have to phase out the internal combustion engine,or at least most of the cars using it.

Just for the fun of it – Neil craig #62 confuses data with a theory, as is his want. His point number 4 displays such an ignorance of the science that I’m amazed he is capable of putting his trousers on in the morning.

Old Holborn #63 – we already have a de facto world government – what happens when a country tries to put into place things deemed restrictions on trade? Or what about all these international treaties about various things, from CFC’s to not invading anyone we please whenever we feel like it?

“what happens when a country tries to put into place things deemed restrictions on trade? Or what about all these international treaties about various things, from CFC’s to not invading anyone we please whenever we feel like it?”

Shall I ask Israel or would that blow the argument out of the water?

Jim acknowledges that the earth has been warmer in recent times than now (the medieval warming) & then demands if I think this is evidence that we are not suffering unprecednted & catastrophic warming?

Andrew insist thats GISS data not be questioned & that stephen McIntyre’s questioning certainly not count. We have already accepted that McIntyre did indeed “question” them, found an obvious error, corected it, had hansen acknowledge his error & that thishas improved them. This is how real science works.

And then there is Guthrie.

Were such people born stupid or do they have to work at it? I suspect the latter.

Neil Craig @ 77

demands if I think this is evidence that we are not suffering unprecednted & catastrophic warming?

Whether or not this is unprecendented is not relevant, the only things that matters is are we responsible and how will it effect us in the future.

Neil, my netbook screen maybe too small to see properly, so where does Jim say that the MWP was warmer than today? I can’t see it anywhere.

Nor can I see anything in your posts which provides any evidence against the current science.

Old Holborn – why should it? Has Israel signed any treaties in the last few decades, or does it do its own thing at all times? Besides, my point was actually to belittle your nutty world government ranting by comparison to already existing international agreements and enforcements. Is it the ultra rich and corporations you don’t like or what?

@76
“Whether or not this is unprecendented is not relevant, the only things that matters is are we responsible and how will it effect us in the future”.

And how it will effect US in the future. So does the biosphere, the solar system and the universe exist solely as resources for the use of human beings?

Andrew insist thats GISS data not be questioned & that stephen McIntyre’s questioning certainly not count. We have already accepted that McIntyre did indeed “question” them, found an obvious error, corected it, had hansen acknowledge his error & that thishas improved them. This is how real science works.

I did indeed acknowlege that McIntyre did find an error, albeit a minor one, so obviously his questioning does count. What I had a problem with was your statement that we can trust the US figures because they “have now been verified by a real scientist”, the implication being that we can’t trust the global figures because “a real scientist” has not verified them. Of course NASA’s data is publicly available so any “real scientists” out there are free to try to discredit them if they wish.

I think with Neil Craig of ‘Derek and Sunny are fascists’ fame, batting the for the climate sceptics, the mainstream is pretty safe.

Hey Neil what evidence do you have that ‘Derek and Sunny’ worship Mussolini or are members of the BNP?

perhaps Neil is a sock puppet of the non sceptics, he certainly looks like some one invented to discredit the sceptics case?

Global Warming??

Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun’s output cause the observed changes in the
Earth’s temperature.

In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun’s output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun’s output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.

The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth’s
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada

Earth’s flat right?

Man made Global warming right?

Jim acknowledges that what we have isn’t unprecedented. That means we have precedents & can look at them to see if “catastrophic warming” is so catastrophic.

The medieval warming was a period of prosperity – it was the cooling afterwards that brought the Black Death.

The Climate Optimum, even warmer, had the Sahara lush & fertile & amy well have inspired the Garden of Eden memoories.

This must be some new definition of the word “catastrophe”. As Derek’s definition of the Green party as non-fascist, despite their thuggery & desire to dictate to us being obviously far more evident than in the BNP requires a brand new definition of that term.

Andrew I’m not sure Hansen’s error was that minor. After all you acknowledge it made 1934 rather than 1998 the warmest which is not entirely consistent with the theory of catastrophically rising temperature. 😉

You got it flat-earther.

Go back to hating Muslims, that doesn’t make you look so myopic, only bigoted.

Quasimodo in Number 10, hunched, scowling over his desk, has devised yet another plan to police, to increase surveillance, to indulge his obsession with extending his short-lived control over as many people as possible. Gordon Brown, who now seems to have lost his last tenuous grip on reality, wants the European Union to police the carbon emissions of the whole world. That is the leitmotif of New Labour – and, by extension, all Westminster – government: control, bans, observation, intrusion, diktat.

Balked of a legal agreement on imaginary manmade global warming at Copenhagen, Quasimodo and Nicolas Sarkozy are working on plans to create a “European monitoring organisation” to oversee different countries’ actions on carbon emissions. Barack Obama – the leading control freak in the liberal pantheon – has suggested spy satellites could be used.

Quasimodo told reporters: “We’re in favour of transparency; we’re in favour of looking at what’s happening not just in our country and our own continent, but around the world.” That isn’t transparency: that is snooping. “We’re in favour of transparency” – from a New Labour Prime Minister! Goebbels, who always favoured the Big Lie, would have loved it.

Were Quasimodo and his colleagues in favour of transparency about weapons of mass destruction? Even now, are they in favour of transparency at the Iraq inquiry, where Tony Blair will give evidence in secret? Were they in favour of transparency when they voted to keep MPs’ expenses under wraps, until the courts overruled them?

The one fear the enforcers entertain is that their spy-in-the-sky snooping on carbon emissions might antagonise China, which resists surveillance (all those covert coal mines and other eco-naughties). When Red China begins to seem like an apostle of laissez-faire, relaxed freedom, we know that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Meanwhile, unheeding of the coming tsunami of electoral extinction, Quasimodo lopes around his bell-tower (courtesy of Quentin Davies) and plans ever tighter restrictions on everybody else’s liberties. What a filthy regime this has been. Even now the Harridan is planning legislation effectively to outlaw Christianity. Who do they think they are?

When they crawled out from under that stone in 1997 they had just one ambition: to impose their will, their prejudices, their squalid vision of the world on the entire nation. That is always the badge of the inadequate, the owners of inferiority complexes, epitomised by the nail-biting, grimacing weirdo in Number 10. It is a pity that Scottish kirks do not go in for much in the way of ornamentation; otherwise, Gordon/Quasimodo could have built a secure career for himself as a gargoyle on a church tower, scowlingly overlooking the rest of humanity.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100020499/now-gordon-brown-wants-to-police-the-entire-world-how-controlling-can-a-freak-get/

Andrew I’m not sure Hansen’s error was that minor. After all you acknowledge it made 1934 rather than 1998 the warmest which is not entirely consistent with the theory of catastrophically rising temperature.

Neil, from the NASA website.

“The data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record and the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states, the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis, 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (but not globally) by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the certainty.”

As we’ve already discussed this relates to the “contiguous 48 states”, ie less than 2% of the earth’s surface, so cannot be used to claim that 1934 is the hottest year globally. If you look at the NASA temperature charts the one for the US only clearly has far more variability than the global chart, so it is not surprising that individual years might be anomalous. But the overall trend for the US is still upwards.

OH – awesmone post. Up em it they do not like.

Evey Hammond: Are you like a crazy person?
V: I am quite sure they will say so

Epic verbiage there with Twat Munro cheerleading.

Cool.

Neil #84 – way to go about ignoring my answer. Unprecedented in the history of the earth is no panacea, given that our modern civilisation is adapted for specific temperature ranges and sea level heights. Taking ‘catastrophic’ warming as your measure is a one size fits all metric and thus no use, as you repeatedly demonstrate by overusing it for hyperbolic purposes.

As for the Medieval warm period, we are already warmer than then and will get alot warmer in this century. And the MWP was not a synchronous global event, unlike the current warming.

Old Holborn – ironically the controlfreaks against whom you rage are in the pay of the corporations and rich folk. Moaning on at us more left wing people who are agin such people and their minions won’t make any difference to anything.

And you still need to work out some way of avoiding the earth getting much warmer and the oceans more acidic.

Well Hansen never said 1934 was the warmest before he was corrected, whatever wiggling he does now. The point about the res of the world, to repeat yet again, is that we have no reliable figures either way. The Principle of Mediocrity requires scientists to assume the rest of the world was like the US until they have reliable figures otherwise.

“And you still need to work out some way of avoiding the earth getting much warmer and the oceans more acidic.”

Man has already adapted to living on ice. Man has already adapted to living in deserts, on top of mountains and below sea level. It’s what we do. It’s why we’re top of the food chain.

If stupid Bangladeshis want to live on known flood plains because the land is cheap, or the Umbongo tribe decide to live 20 miles away from the nearest water because they hate the Mfufu tribe next door, that’s their look out, not mine.

I’m off to roast a dolphin.

Good riddance you daft racist.

I love the idea that man learns to adapt, yet “adapting” by helping to manage global temperature is an adaptation too far!

Well Hansen never said 1934 was the warmest before he was corrected, whatever wiggling he does now. The point about the res of the world, to repeat yet again, is that we have no reliable figures either way. The Principle of Mediocrity requires scientists to assume the rest of the world was like the US until they have reliable figures otherwise.

Both the NASA and CRU global temperature records are reliable.The fact that you choose not to believe that does not make it otherwise and you continually fail to provide any evidence to the contrary.

I love the idea that man learns to adapt, yet “adapting” by helping to manage global temperature is an adaptation too far!

Also, concern about climate change is “alarmist”, yet taking serious steps to prevent it will lead to economic meltdown, leave us all living in yurts etc.

“Also, concern about climate change is “alarmist”, yet taking serious steps to prevent it will lead to economic meltdown”

Erm, well, would be wiser to actually find out what the economists (you know, the experts in this area?) are saying about it all.

Some actions (stop using fossil fuels tomorrow!) would indeed lead to economic meltdown but fortunately no one is listening to Greenpeace or Caroline Lucas so we’re not going to do anything that damn stupid.

The rest of the economic argument runs along these lines:

Climate change is happening and that will have costs. Thus there are benefits to us of reducing climate change.

Changing our behaviour in order to slow or stop climate change will have costs. (This is obvious….if it were going to be cheaper to decarbonise the economy anyway, without the climate change stuff, then we’d be doing it anyway, wouldn’t we?)

Excellent, so, what we want to do is as much preventing of climate change as we can, up to and only the point where the benefits we get from doing so are higher than the costs of doing so.

Yes, we do put the kitchen sink in, the value of species, the biosphere, Bangladesh and all the rest. We also put in the economic growth we won’t get because we’re all using more expensive energy, the people who will die because we’re building windmills instead of curing cancer (well, actually, not that last, but if we could think of a way of measuring it we would) and so on.

Right, so what’s the result? OK, people are still chewing this over but everyone, and I do mean everyone, has accepted that to try and stop climate change right now, immediately, would indeed lead to economic ruin which is why we’re not even pretending to try and stop it right now. That’s why we’re talking about having peak emissions in a few years time then declining after that rather than no emissions from now on.

So you can’t dismiss the “economic meltdown” argument in that manner: for everyone, and really it is everyone, accepts it to some degree.

Where there is more controversy is which actions and which plans have more benefits than costs? And which methods provide us with better ways of doing the same thing?

For example, a globalised world economy will provide a higher standard of living for any given level of resource consumption (as long as externalities are priced in) and a lower level of resource consumption for any given standard of living than a non globalised economy.

But sadly you only see a few like myself arguing that globalisation is therefore an aid to slowing climate change.

That, of course, simply represents the very highest standard of honesty to whic you, or virtually any eco-fascist, or the people running this site, ever aspire.- ie a total & complete lie.

Massive evidence has been produced, partly from themselves, proving that the people running the CRU have lied & juggled the data to hide the decline among other things. That means there data simply cannot be, as you say, “reliable”.

If you have some evidence that Hansen, a man with a record of pushing the Ice age scare as well as the catastrophic warming one, & his data, are more than 10,000 times closer to honest than yourself or any of the other eco-fascist liars please produce it. Or else explain what “reliable” means to you.

Old Holborn #94 shows a bit of a nasty streak, doesn’t he?
Anyway, the problenm isn’t with mankind the species, the problem is that many of us would rather not risk millions of lives, the destruction of global ecospheres and chuncks of our current civilisation on the off chance that even the moderate predictions of the nasty stuff from global warming occurs.

Meanwhile Neil at #100 continues with lies and stupidity. What decline were they hiding, Neil? Why the sudden concern with someones honesty given that you are incapable of judging it?

Ahh Neil, that’ll be the decline in specific sets of high latitude tree temperatures:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-divergence-problem.html

Unfortunately for the likes of you, Neil, your ignorance is such that you seem to think that discussing an issue with a temperature proxy in which the proxy shows a decline somehow cancels out all the temperature records over the last 30 or 40 years which show a decisive increase in temperature. So whats happening Neil, is it getting warmer or cooler? Besides, the really funny thing is that denialists like Neil think that tree rings are rubbish when they don’t show a MWP concurrent across the globe but are great when they show a decline…

The claim of Professor Jones deciding to “hide the decline” in global temperature comes from quote-mining liars.

Next!

I’ll apologise as soon as you retract the untrue, quote-mined assertion.

It clearly cannot be both untrue & “quote-mined”. If the former Jones didn’t email it. If the latter then he did, but you simply say it is wrong to mention it.

One way or another you are a complete liar. One way or another any part of the “environmentalist2 movement which is honest is eager to say what a liar you are.

…and now we play dumb, affecting to not understand what quote mining is and how it works.

Well done Neil, a perfect regurgitation of the lies which you have been fed. The UHI has been demonstrated to be not as big as people think, it is already compensated for by comparing rural with urban stations and funnily enough it is the trend which is most interesting not the precise temperature.
Do remember that Watts station monitoring project sunk after John V carried out analysis on the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ stations and found that they had an effectively identical trend.
Not to mention all the melting ice, the plants moving northwards, the heat being stored in the ocean etc etc. Can you produce any evidence at all that the temperatures are declining over the last 30 years?

Unfortunately for the likes of you, Neil, your ignorance is such that you seem to think that discussing an issue with a temperature proxy in which the proxy shows a decline somehow cancels out all the temperature records over the last 30 or 40 years which show a decisive increase in temperature. So whats happening Neil, is it getting warmer or cooler? Besides, the really funny thing is that denialists like Neil think that tree rings are rubbish when they don’t show a MWP concurrent across the globe but are great when they show a decline…

onlineuniversalwork

Unfortinately for the likes on wanzero & his assertions about ignorance the upturn in temperature happened 30 not 40 years ago. From roughly 1940 to 1979 it was falling (hence the “environmentalists” pushing the ice age scare at the time). So the answer to his question is that it is getting cooler now, it was getting warmer up to 19998, it was gwetting cooler to 1979, it was getting warmer to 1934, it was getting cooler to 1550, it was getting warmer to 1200, it was getting cooler from 5,000 BC.

All of these have been natural trends & we are well inside the historic natural variations. Anybody who denies that is either a liar or a moron. Any politician or party which denies it is a wholly corrupt, illiberal, indeed fascist parassite who cannot ever be trusted to tell anything remotely close to the truth on any subject whatsoever.

I noter that over the last few days arvery single member of the eco-fascist movement who is somethimg other thanj lyinmg, thieving scum, has dissociated themselves from the other Neil’s lies.

110. Randy Bullock

Hello from the U.S. everyone I hope you are all having a great day. Bored so I’ll just shake the tree again to see what radical leftists says about the following:

1. Since communism/socialism has failed so miserably everywhere it has been tried is the “Global Warming” (Oops I’m sorry we call it “Climate Change” after Al Gore’s had a conference during record low temperatures in NY) just another bite at the apple.

2. The Kyoto Treaty went to the US Senate for ratification- 97-0 against. Such a disaster that even the out-of-touch bureaucrats don’t want it.

3. Since CO2 has increased the last few years, why hasn’t the temperature? The temperature was lower in 2007 and 2008 and we are having the coldest winter in several years this year?

4. Care to comment on the polar bear population increase?

5. Europe’s utility costs have skyrocketed and unemployment is up due to your version of “Cap and Trade”, but emissions are even. Why? Shouldn’t they be down?

6. What guarantees are there that any money given to the third world dictators will go to “green” jobs and not in their pockets….the evidence with these lefties and righties is that they are mostly corrupt and line their pockets. They even left the Copenhagen talks when it was not evident they weren’t gonna get blank checks from industrial democracies.

7. I still have not heard an adult “pro-Climate Change” argument for the corrupt email scandal?

8. During the 1970s, climate scientists were concerned about temperature drops and considered dropping coal dust on the poles. Since CO2 would have been higher in the 1970s than the 1960s, why was the temperature dropping?

Ok I gotta do some work but comrades please respond.

111. do not feed the troll

read the post flat earther

“1. Since communism/socialism has failed so miserably everywhere it has been tried is the “Global Warming” (Oops I’m sorry we call it “Climate Change” after Al Gore’s had a conference during record low temperatures in NY) just another bite at the apple.”

This isn’t really a “1” is it, not a question or inquisitive statement, it’s a proud diatribe to make it clear what your prejudices are straight away. You’re a right wing sceptic (I’m going to be generous) of climate change, and most of us aren’t. We’re not going to get anywhere treading that particular ground. Much easier to just show you where you’re wrong or lacking information…

“2. The Kyoto Treaty went to the US Senate for ratification- 97-0 against. Such a disaster that even the out-of-touch bureaucrats don’t want it.”

The interests of a single country and how a global agreement on tackling climate change should be taken by that single country is nothing but a commentary on how that single country wishes to treat an issue…not a reflection on the issue. Politicians are politicians, scientists are scientists.

“3. Since CO2 has increased the last few years, why hasn’t the temperature? The temperature was lower in 2007 and 2008 and we are having the coldest winter in several years this year?”

*We* are having the coldest winter, it doesn’t mean the WORLD is having the coldest winter. Welcome to the difference between weather and climate. Also solar activity decline and La Nina…which you’d know if you read anything even remotely objective about global temperature.

“4. Care to comment on the polar bear population increase?”

Care to comment on why you think a cherry picked population comparison is relevant? Of a species hunted in to small numbers before being put under conservation techniques specifically to increase it’s population? All meaningful studies in to population and behaviour show the effect of the ice caps melting, and that is smaller hunting periods, harder lifestyles and declining population.

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision—this is a change from five that were declining in 2005, five that were stable, and two that were increasing.

“5. Europe’s utility costs have skyrocketed and unemployment is up due to your version of “Cap and Trade”, but emissions are even. Why? Shouldn’t they be down?”

What does this have to do about climate change? It’s politics and political failings and nothing more.

“6. What guarantees are there that any money given to the third world dictators will go to “green” jobs and not in their pockets….the evidence with these lefties and righties is that they are mostly corrupt and line their pockets. They even left the Copenhagen talks when it was not evident they weren’t gonna get blank checks from industrial democracies.”

The likes of Copenhagen are political conferences, perhaps justified by it’s participants based on the science, but are ultimately about politics more than anything else. A separate argument can easily be had on the effectiveness of these global forums, and the practicality, but they have no bearing on the science.

“7. I still have not heard an adult “pro-Climate Change” argument for the corrupt email scandal?”

Then you haven’t looked hard enough. The arguments against those that blew the emails out of proportion and context have been visited several times on this site alone. Something tells me that you will simply not agree with the reality of how mundane this “scandal” was, however.

“8. During the 1970s, climate scientists were concerned about temperature drops and considered dropping coal dust on the poles. Since CO2 would have been higher in the 1970s than the 1960s, why was the temperature dropping?”

Why it was cooling for such a short period is irrelevant to the longer trends, and scientists in the 70s weren’t as concerned solely on cooling as you try to misrepresent.

Thankfully we don’t really take our lead from a historical point in science where data was still young and untested, while ignoring more than half of the timescale of climate change science that has occurred since then with even more information to colour the debate.

113. Randy Bullock

Lee

Thanks for the response. Please see below. I tried to red the font but that formatting was unavailable on a socialist website.

“1. Since communism/socialism has failed so miserably everywhere it has been tried is the “Global Warming” (Oops I’m sorry we call it “Climate Change” after Al Gore’s had a conference during record low temperatures in NY) just another bite at the apple.”

This isn’t really a “1? is it, not a question or inquisitive statement, it’s a proud diatribe to make it clear what your prejudices are straight away. You’re a right wing skeptic (I’m going to be generous) of climate change, and most of us aren’t. We’re not going to get anywhere treading that particular ground. Much easier to just show you where you’re wrong or lacking information…

Yes and No. I was born into a liberal family and was extremely open to the man made aspects of “Global Warming” concept. We fell for acid rain before. “Global Warming” was introduced to us in my family and school as a scientific consensus and I even considered a career in environmental engineering. I am indeed very skeptical now (I became an adult) when others found faulty data collection, faulty reasoning SOME scientists, the response from the Climate Change community to anyone that offers any dissention, the $$ that people like Al Gore (considered someone who is prone to exaggeration by rational people) make based on theory, the pathetic response to the email controversy, the cooling of the entire Earth in 2007, and 2008, etc. etc.

“2. The Kyoto Treaty went to the US Senate for ratification- 97-0 against. Such a disaster that even the out-of-touch bureaucrats don’t want it.”

The interests of a single country and how a global agreement on tackling climate change should be taken by that single country is nothing but a commentary on how that single country wishes to treat an issue…not a reflection on the issue. Politicians are politicians, scientists are scientists.

Out of touch, never had an honest or private sector job liberals, even the same ones that recently voted in our “Cap and Trade” law voted no. 97-0, 97-0, 97-0.

“3. Since CO2 has increased the last few years, why hasn’t the temperature? The temperature was lower in 2007 and 2008 and we are having the coldest winter in several years this year?”

*We* are having the coldest winter, it doesn’t mean the WORLD is having the coldest winter. Welcome to the difference between weather and climate. Also solar activity decline and La Nina…which you’d know if you read anything even remotely objective about global temperature.

No climate is whatever you want it to be….as long as it fits your narrow views. All we hear is that CO2 is up CO2 is up and well yes it is and we do control that. But where is the temperature increase in the last few years? Now you reference solar activity….um we can’t control that. The world having cooler temperatures two years in a row does mean that the Earth is cooler two years in a row.
“4. Care to comment on the polar bear population increase?”

Care to comment on why you think a cherry picked population comparison is relevant? Of a species hunted in to small numbers before being put under conservation techniques specifically to increase its population? All meaningful studies in to population and behaviour show the effect of the ice caps melting, and that is smaller hunting periods, harder lifestyles and declining population.
At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision—this is a change from five that were declining in 2005, five that were stable, and two that were increasing.

View the following:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/06/28/polar-bear-testimony-suppressed-due-inconvenient-truths
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/
One is a conservative propaganda page. The other is POLAR BEAR INTERNATIONAL.

“5. Europe’s utility costs have skyrocketed and unemployment is up due to your version of “Cap and Trade”, but emissions are even. Why? Shouldn’t they be down?”
What does this have to do about climate change? It’s politics and political failings and nothing more.

It just shows the silliness. The rest of the world continues to develop and Europe intentionally hurts itself. World CO2 is still up, but the temperatures are down.

“6. What guarantees are there that any money given to the third world dictators will go to “green” jobs and not in their pockets….the evidence with these lefties and righties is that they are mostly corrupt and line their pockets. They even left the Copenhagen talks when it was not evident they weren’t gonna get blank checks from industrial democracies.”

The likes of Copenhagen are political conferences, perhaps justified by it’s participants based on the science, but are ultimately about politics more than anything else. A separate argument can easily be had on the effectiveness of these global forums, and the practicality, but they have no bearing on the science.

Just shows that the bureaucratic nonsense and corruption involved in those who swear by “Global Warming” or I’m sorry “Climate Change”- the temperature went down 0.00000001 degree last week. From the celebrity crooks like Gore that take private planes and limos (nasty fossil fuel burners), to the corrupt dictators waiting for the Euros and dollars to further enslave their own people, to the politicians who achieve non-binding agreements with other crooks based on science that they themselves cannot understand.

You state political to science…you are on a socialist website.

“7. I still have not heard an adult “pro-Climate Change” argument for the corrupt email scandal?”

Then you haven’t looked hard enough. The arguments against those that blew the emails out of proportion and context have been visited several times on this site alone. Something tells me that you will simply not agree with the reality of how mundane this “scandal” was, however.

Nope. It may be mundane to you but it is not mundane to us. One of the crooks is on suspension and the guy from Penn State is remaining silent as he will not discuss this with anyone who won’t just take his word on its face without skepticism. These guys have stolen grant money based on fraud and even used the word “Fudge Factor” in their computer program. Mundane? BBC?

“8. During the 1970s, climate scientists were concerned about temperature drops and considered dropping coal dust on the poles. Since CO2 would have been higher in the 1970s than the 1960s, why was the temperature dropping?”
Why it was cooling for such a short period is irrelevant to the longer trends, and scientists in the 70s weren’t as concerned solely on cooling as you try to misrepresent.

Thankfully we don’t really take our lead from a historical point in science where data was still young and untested, while ignoring more than half of the timescale of climate change science that has occurred since then with even more information to colour the debate.

Great, then let’s keep taking data rather than turn the world upside down. Maybe this data is still young and untested and the future science will even clearly show that Climate Change is cyclical based more on solar activity rather than human uses of carbon.

“the temperature went down 0.00000001 degree last week”

Right, so you really are just a troll then?

“One is a conservative propaganda page. The other is POLAR BEAR INTERNATIONAL.”

Lol… one is citing scientific research from an international research group, the other is a conservative propaganda outlet.

The mission of the Media Research Center, “America’s Media Watchdog,” is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America’s conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed

“Great, then let’s keep taking data rather than turn the world upside down. Maybe this data is still young and untested and the future science will even clearly show that Climate Change is cyclical based more on solar activity rather than human uses of carbon.”

Except the temperatures have risen despite solar cycles having been and gone. You know a solar cycle is a fairly short term event in the grand scheme of things? 10-12 years is the average, yet the data harvested by scientists is for over 1000 years. Climate change is based on solar activity, but only for the last 2 or 3 cycles out of 100?

Like most of your stance, the argument you put forward here is based on anomalies, extraordinary and extreme singular events or data, and a misunderstanding of the science and scientific techniques.

115. Randy Bullock

Extreme singular events are extreme just because you want them to be and again, they don’t support your narrow views. If temperatures are supposed to increase and they are not than they are not…..

Also your explanation of the email FRAUDs are week but not expected as again FRAUD is FRAUD and there is no excuse for it.

“Extreme singular events are extreme”

Let’s look at Extreme…

1. Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest: the extreme edge of the field.
2. Being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree; very intense: extreme pleasure; extreme pain.
3. Extending far beyond the norm: an extreme conservative. See Synonyms at excessive.
4. Of the greatest severity; drastic: took extreme measures to conserve fuel.

These events are extreme because they fit the definition of extreme, no other agenda. Can we have a whip around to buy this man a dictionary please?

I’ll chip in a quid Lee for that dictionary!

118. Randy Bullock

You take yourself way too seriously….It was a joke about you stating facts…that are facts only when they say what you want them to say. But if they don’t that then they are “extreme” or climate isn’t the same as temperature.

I speak about the fraud and you give me a dictionary to look up extreme. AND….you are contribute to a SOCIALIST website..

What next is one of you guys gonna call me a flat earther…oops you already went there.

Dude, I couldn’t care less what you’re calling me or not (and Socialist I am not, even if I contribute here). What I find funny is that you seem to think that singular extreme “evidence” is worth as much as 1000 years worth of data, as if a cold spell in one part of the world for a week or two completely eradicates the evidence of an around 100 year global warming trend.

If you can’t see how moronic your stance is on “evidence” and “fraud” in this regard then you can’t be helped. Nor, I imagine, do you care to be.

120. Randy Bullock

If you are not a socialist than I apologize. I would never want to call someone something like that if you were not one.

Again though…they are extreme only because you want them to be. Now its 1000 years, before you stated 40 years…and I still have not heard any adult common sense explanation for the email fraud scandal other than the BBC, CBC, NBC, MS-NBC, CBS, and ABC said they checked it out and everything is just fine.

Thirty years ago the 1000 years of data said we were cooling and now the data says we are warming? According to your reasoning maybe the last thirty years are extreme, only 3% of the entire 1000 year data?

Thirty years ago the 1000 years of data said we were cooling

Not true.

“A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.”

As for the definition of “extreme” or “unusual”, there are perfectly standard statistical methods for assessing such things. Does the phrase “standard deviation” mean anything to you?

“According to your reasoning maybe the last thirty years are extreme, only 3% of the entire 1000 year data?”

It is extreme, but it’s also a trend that has survived multiple cooling cycles of the sun, multiple warming and cooling cycles through el nino/la nina, all “extremes” of weather and more. The science shows that this is a trend occurring for only a few select reasons, and one of the main reasons is CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The trend has been going on long enough, through enough variation, to show us that this is not a “blip” but a trend.

Our cold weather (or even a SUPER hot and dry summer) is a blip, some 100 years of warming trend is something else.

“I still have not heard any adult common sense explanation for the email fraud scandal ”

As I said, check out the other articles here and videos linked to. Unfortunately the “common sense” is generally lacked by those reading in to “hiding the decline” or “tricks” and thinking they’re something they’re not with no basis.

123. Randy Bullock

You still have not defended the fraud committed during the email scandal so I’ll just assume that you have accepted fraud as long as the results agree with your opinion.

I am familiar with standard deviation- I have an engineering degree.

Funny, how you did not hear about these guys who predicted warming in the 1970s. I wonder about your soource. Even if that is a fact….the same thing is going on now with people who indicate Climate Change is not primarily based on CO2…their mikes are cut, they are “flat earthers” and are drowned out by BBC, CBC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, etc.

“You still have not defended the fraud committed during the email scandal so I’ll just assume that you have accepted fraud as long as the results agree with your opinion.”

I see no evidence of fraud, the example you pointed out above regarding the “fudge factor” is nothing more than a bit of code. Can you show me where it was used? If it was a final version? If the data used in it was final or temporary? Can you explain to me how the adjustment data was arrived at and what its purpose was? Was it to “fudge” temperatures or was it to “fudge” tree ring data for example? Call this, if you like, accepting fraud because it agrees with my opinion…I’ll call it what it is, not assuming I know all the facts just because I see a few words that whet my whistle.

If you want to show any *real* proof of fraud then go right ahead, shouting interesting words loudly isn’t quite the same as “absolute evidence of fraud!!!” though.

“Funny, how you did not hear about these guys who predicted warming in the 1970s.”

The 70s was about CFCs and cooling through them, that was the big threat of the time until it was, by the end of the 80s, solved by controlling the output of CFC emissions. Sound familiar? Also, just because a pope shits in the woods doesn’t mean you hear the plop.

the same thing is going on now with people who indicate Climate Change is not primarily based on CO2

Do you mean changes to our climate in general, ie including those in pre-industrial times, or the current climate change we are seeing?

126. Randy Bullock

I’m not asking you to provide links to other people saying the same thing without appropriate evidence. That is not proof. Perhaps this lack of understanding in what constitutes “proof” is why you don’t understand the scientific consensus?

However, to settle your mind on these 4 links about one rather old climate denial myth…

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html

Once again, not that you will accept this kind of reality given it doesn’t relate to your own. Ironic really given your accusations.

Oh man, that’s just hilarious! Are you really sure that you wanted to included New Scientist’s debunking of the idea that the “hockey stick” has been proven wrong in there?

Lee – did you notice that he included the link to the NS himself? Man, I love auto-refutation!

Dunc, actually I didn’t notice that, I’d given up checking by link 3! How rare 😀

131. Randy Bullock

It was the first four articles I saw and I was in a rush to do some real work….I have to feed the government coffers with the fruits of my labor.

It shows that I am not cherry picking for sure. I was the one who TOLD YOU that one of my proofs for the polar bear population increase was a right leaning site.

If you insist the third article is true and is science than why not the other three articles since there was a 3-1 advantage to the FRAUD.

Information from Al Gore (makes $100,000,000 on Global Warming Climate), tenured professors who can’t compete in the private sector but get millions in grants, equals truth to you and skeptics (including scientists who see flaws in methodology, pure fraud, and question the results) who disagrees and mention that there may be a ulterior motive (money and power) are “flat earthers”, or their views or data and within the standard deviation or too extreme.

Why wouldn’t Al Gore stating that NYC will be 10ft under water in 20 years be extreme? But the fact that the earth cooled in 2007 and 2008 is extreme and should not be used in calculations?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    :: Climate change: back to basics http://bit.ly/6jXlC6

  2. Claire Butler

    RT @libcon Climate change: back to basics http://bit.ly/84c1rE

  3. David

    Liberal Conspiracy » Climate change: back to basics http://bit.ly/82kMP3

  4. Tweets that mention Liberal Conspiracy » Climate change: back to basics -- Topsy.com

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Liberal Conspiracy, Claire Butler. Claire Butler said: RT @libcon Climate change: back to basics http://bit.ly/84c1rE […]

  5. Best of Web December 20th | www.the-vibe.co.uk

    […] Climate change: back to basics – […]

  6. Web links for 21st December 2009 | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC

    […] Climate change: back to basics ** Posted using Viigo: Mobile RSS, Sports, Current Events and more ** Thanks to the Copenhagen summit and the fall out from the CRU hack the subject of Climate Change here has been the subject of much […]

  7. Compass

    RT @libcon Climate change: back to basics http://bit.ly/84c1rE





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.