This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.
The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?
By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.
Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.
Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.
Useful links:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.
Max,
The original comments in question were
1) ““..’mainstream science’ says the IPCC are a bunch of liars………” from Brute
2) “I have the feeling that you will remain a firm supporter of the IPCC ‘mainstream’view “- Max
3) “The IPCC reports are effectively the position of mainstream science on the AGW issue” Me
4) “This is pure balderdash…” Max
Despite saying that the IPCC does represent the mainstream view in 2) you also say it is “balderdash” in 4). You are contradicting yourself.
You were right in 2) – I am indeed a supporter of mainstream science – but wrong in 4) I do not support the line taken by Anthony Watts who runs an unofficial website promoting his own opinions which are clearly outside the mainstream.
What does that make Real Climate, I wonder?
Bob_FJ
I know you have had censorship problems at Real Climate, so this might interest you.
On the Mann “last millennium” RC blog site, David B. Benson cited a study by Barton Paul Levenson on decadal time periods, which purportedly showed a good correlation between CO2 and temperature and confirmed the IPCC assumed 3.2C climate sensitivity at equilibrium for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
I tried to duplicate this study using the HadCRUT (rather than the GISS) record.
I showed that there is no statistical correlation between temperature and CO2 over the periods studied, and that the climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1.4 and 2.1C, even if all other forcing factors are ignored.
My post was censored out by Gavin.
Taking the estimated CO2 values based on ice core data prior to 1957 (as listed by JPL after 1880 and “guess-timated” from 1850 to 1879) and Mauna Loa data after 1958, one can break down the HadCRUT record from 1850 to 2009 into five 32-year segments, to compare actual linear temperature increase, theoretical temperature increase (based on CS = 3.2C) and CO2 concentration at beginning and end of period (C1 and C2).
This record shows:
1850-1881 ln(C2/C1) = 0.0215 dT(theo) = +0.10C dT(act) = +0.27C CS = +8.8C
1882-1913 ln(C2/C1) = 0.0307 dT(theo) = +0.14C dT(act) = -0.26C CS = -5.8C
1914-1945 ln(C2/C1) = 0.0295 dT(theo) = +0.14C dT(act) = +0.47C CS = +11.1C
1946-1977 ln(C2/C1) = 0.0739 dT(theo) = +0.34C dT(act) = +0.15C CS = +1.4C
1978-2009 ln(C2/C1) = 0.1505 dT(theo) = +0.69C dT(act) = +0.48C CS = +2.2C
1850-2009 ln(C2/C1) = 0.3137 dT(theo) = +1.45C dT(act) = +0.66C CS = +1.4C
As can be seen, the CO2 temperature correlation is very weak and does not validate the assumed 3.2C climate sensitivity.
Even if one assumes that it takes 40 years to reach equilibrium, the warming for earlier periods through 1945 has been reached. In addition, an estimated 75% of the expected warming from 1946-1977 has also been reached, leaving 25% still in the “pipeline”.
The expected theoretical warming at equilibrium for the last 32 years is 0.69C, of which we have seen 0.48C (leaving 0.21C in the “pipeline”).
This leaves in the “pipeline”: 0.25 * 0.34 + 0.21 = 0.295, say 0.3C.
This would put the 160 year equilibrium warming at 0.66 + 0.3 = 0.96C, with an observed 2xCO2 transient response of 1.4C and a 2xCO2 equilibrium CS = 2.1C, assuming that all the observed warming can be attributed to increased CO2 concentrations.
The study by Barton Paul Levenson (using GISS rather than Hadley and starting in 1880 rather than 1850) came up with a 2xCO2 transient response of 2.28C, which he then calculated to be equivalent to a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity at equilibrium of 3.2C.
This is quite a bit higher than the actually observed transient response for 2xCO2 of 1.4C. The calculated 2xCO2 equilibrium CS of 2.1C is also quite a bit lower than the 3.2C assumed by the IPCC climate models (and calculated by Barton Paul Levenson).
What is also not apparent is a good multi-decadal statistical correlation between CO2 and temperature. It bounces all over the place in a “random walk”.
And another basic problem is that these analyses fixate myopically on CO2 as the sole driver of climate, ignoring all other factors.
IPCC tells us that all anthropogenic forcing factors other than CO2 essentially cancelled one another out (1750-2005 total anthropogenic forcing = 1.6 W/m^2, compared with CO2 forcing at 1.66 W/m^2), so we can ignore these.
What we cannot ignore, however (even though IPCC essentially did so) are the natural forcing factors (which are now being blamed by Met Office for the cooling since 2000).
Solar scientists have estimated that around half of the observed warming (0.35C) can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (highest in several thousand years). If we include this solar impact alone, the observed 2xCO2 CS would be around 1C, rather than 2.1C, of course.
So I think we can bury the Barton Paul Levenson study, which was cited by David B. Benson as proof of a good statistical correlation between CO2 and temperature and a 3.2C climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2.
Max
PS (to James P): Yes RC is an “official” climate site (in the eyes of PeterM, at least), since it censors out anything that may be inconvenient to the “mainstream mantra”.
PeterM
Try putting on your “logic” hat (assuming you have one)
You wrote:
No contradiction at all, Peter.
You claimed that IPCC represents (what you call) “mainstream science” (I do not use such silly descriptions for the IPCC view).
I simply commented to your:
With the comment below:
So: IPCC does not represent “mainstream science” on AGW and to claim that it does is “balderdash” (or BS, to use a more modern term).
Max
Bob_FJ
BTW here is the link to the statistical study of Barton Paul Levenson I cited (703).
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html
He claims a “60% correlation” over the entire period between CO2 and temperature, but, what the hell, I can show an 90% correlation between the sale of McDonalds “Big Macs” and temperature since the 1970s.
What’s the old saying?
Statistics don’t lie, but statisticians do.
Max
Bob_FJ
Forgot to mention that I also checked out the Temperature / CO2 coefficient of correlation, R, for the five 32-year periods between 1850 and 2009.
As you can see, there is no statistical correlation (despite what BPL has claimed):
1850-1881: R = 0.566; R^2 = 0.320
1882-1913: R = -0.665; R^2 = 0.442
1914-1945: R = 0.827; R^2 = 0.685
1946-1977: R = 0.399; R^2 = 0.159
1978-2009: R = 0.845; R^2 = 0.714
Max
Max, Reur 703, (plus 705/6)
That’s a very interesting post, and thanks for that. It’s a pity that Gavin found it to be inconvenient though. I think it would be good if everyone posted such deletions by RC over at WUWT on the “Tips and Notes” (open) thread, and if enough show up, perhaps Anthony might start a thread, as I’ve hinted to him here. If it turns out that the RC disciples would start trolling in retaliation, then no matter how silly they are, their posts need not be deleted as probably hoped for by them, and they could add to the fun? Maybe?
As for the credibility of BPL (Barton Paul Levenson), I think it is enough to say that he is an author of science fiction. (and Carl Sagan didn’t get everything right either) Also, both BPL and David B Benson have cited Grant Foster, (Tamino), which is really stretching their credibility too far, in my opinion.
I’ll transcribe to WUWT shortly, those two posts from my dog Jedda at 628 above that were also deleted at RC.
James P,
Yes Realclimate is an unofficial website too. So is this one.
Strictly speaking the body of scientific knowledge is contained as papers and letters in scientific journals which themselves can be used as references by other scientific papers. A good test of whether something can be considered ‘official’ is to ask if it could be used a reference in a new scientific paper.
So, on this test, even the Royal Society’s own website probably wouldn’t qualify above a certain level.
PeterM and James P (702/708)
What is an “official” climate site (or “study”)?
Looks like none of the definitions apply for “climate blog sites” or “climate studies”, unless one wants to go out on the limb of categorizing the IPCC as a “proper authority”.
The fallacy of the “argument to authority” in science has already been discussed.
To me the use of the word “official” with relation to climate sites or studies is as silly as using the term “mainstream science”.
Both expressions imply a degree of absolute correctness, which just does not fit for this nebulous and tenuous scientific discipline (as we have seen).
My advice would be to stay away from such descriptives and try to discuss physical facts and empirical data.
Max
Bob_FJ
Thanks for your 707. My posts have been censored out by RC so many times, I have stopped counting. There was a brief (post-Climategate) period, where Gavin allowed a more open dialog on RC, but his “groupies” (Hank Roberts, JPL, etc.) have now asked him to delete my posts. This all just points out the basic weakness of the blog site and its scientific opinions.
Back to the “how much warmth is still in the pipeline” question.
The recent cooling of the upper ocean (where this warmth is supposed to be “hiding”) has invalidated the “hidden in the pipeline” postulation, as it cannot be found anywhere else on our planet, either (Kevin Trenberth called this a “travesty” and then speculated that it may be escaping into “outer space” with clouds acting as a “natural thermostat”, sounding a lot like Lindzen).
With no “hidden in the pipeline” hypothesis, the 160-year HadCRUT record would show a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 1.4C, assuming that CO2 (and other anthropogenic forcing factors) were the only factors affecting our climate (as IPCC has essentially assumed).
As I showed, if one assumes that it takes 40 years for GH warming to “reach equilibrium”, then there would still be 0.3C atmospheric warming left lurking “in the pipeline”.
IPCC (SPM 2007, p.12) assumes that this hidden warming is slightly lower, at only 0.1C per decade for the next two deacdes:
This means that the observed warming plus that, which is postulated to be still “hidden in the mystical pipeline”, equates to a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 1.8 to 1.9C, if CO2 were the only forcing factor.
In any case, no matter how you slice it, the physically observed data show us that it appears highly unlikely that the warming from CO2 to year 2100 will be more than 1C, so nothing to really worry about.
This is obviously not the kind of information, which the RC site likes to hear.
Max
This I find interesting. Much of it we’ve seen before – i.e., a psychologist who is sure beyond any shred of doubt that humanity is causing dangerous climate change and is figuring out ways of making everyone else believe it too (NB. are there many psychologists who doubt CAGW? They seem a very committed bunch.) Appropriately enough, Geoff Beattie has been advisor to Big Brother before (in the reality TV sense, rather than in the Orwellian sense.)
The thing is: what Geoff Beattie is saying appears to be that there are people who say they want to be green, save the planet, combat climate change, etc., but their actual behaviour (body language, shopping habits, etc.) contradicts their words. ‘People “may care a good deal less” than the views they express, he says.’
Now we know from polls over the last year or so that the number of people who consider AGW to be a threat is going down, and the number of people sceptical about the dangers of AGW is going up. In the UK there seems to be a majority of people who are sceptical about the threat posed by man-made global warming.
I’m wondering: given that ever fewer people surveyed express concern about AGW, and also that there are those who might be giving lip-service only to the AGW threat (as Beattie’s research appears to be showing), could the polls actually be under-estimating the number of people who are sceptical about AGW?
“Explicitly, people may want to save the planet and appear green, but implicitly they may care a good deal less. Given it is these implicit attitudes that direct and control much of our behaviour in supermarkets and elsewhere, these are the attitudes that we have to pursue and understand and change.” (Italics mine.)
If I’m right, good luck with that!
Alex
Interesting link. Looks like everybody is hopping on the AGW gravy train while it lasts:
Great to see that Prof. Beattie has found a way to make a buck on the AGW craze.
Entrepreneurialism is a great thing!
Doing well by going good is even more rewarding.
Max
Alex
More seriously, back to your link on Prof. Beattie’s study.
“Why aren’t we saving the planet?” is a good question, but it should logically be prefaced with:
“Are we really doing anything to destroy the planet?”
Many surveys are showing that a majority of those asked do not believe so. You point out that the polls are most likely understating the level of AGW skepticism in the general public in the UK.
I would tend to agree for Switzerland, where the polls are pretty ambivalent, but two-thirds of the people with whom I have discussed this topic now believe it is a hoax.
So, obviously, if we all believe that we are “doing nothing to destroy the planet” it is quite logical that we aren’t concerned about “saving the planet” either.
If Beattie is personally worried and wants to “do something to save the planet” (buy a hybrid car or walk to work), more power to him.
If he wants to convince (or psychologically browbeat) others to do so, this is a bit more suspect.
If he wants to turn a fast buck on the AGW hysteria while it still lasts, that could be a smart move.
But if he is at the same time claiming the mantle of “savior of the planet” (as Gore has done), this borders on the hypocritical.
Max
Hi Max
As I think I mentioned before I am writing an article on the Little Ice Age through the perspective of actual instrumental records such as CET. I posted CET a few weeks ago showing it had been warming since 1690.
I have subsequently had conversations with a number of people as it has become apparent that it is the cold episodes within the so called Little Ice age that drags down the overall mean average temperature.
Consequently the higher mean averages we observe are primarily due to it becoming less cold in the winter rather than due to a general warming.
You may be interested in the following link and my comments on it;
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GWDa.htm
The graphs only served to reinforce my own conclusions which were set out in an attachment that I recently sent to two colleagues working within climate science.
Basically the LIA was very episodic and it is clear there were periods around as warm as today, so it appears to be the cold winters that are anomalous and mark out that period from today or the MWP. However some of the winters were notably warmer than the modern era so it is SOME of the very severe winters that are anomalous and which succeed in dragging down the annual mean temperatures.
I have linked to two CET sets I often use that come from Jonathan Drake
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/_sgg/m2m1_1.htm
(Cet composite for year)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/_sgg/m2m1_1.htm
(Cet by each month)
I think the disconnect in 1850 is because CRU used that year as their start point and although they don’t use CET I believe that temperatures since then have been ‘adjusted’ to comply with their own. Prior to 1850 CRU consider instrumental records to be ‘interesting’ rather than ‘accurate,’ the more suspicious may claim this is because of Global warming politics, however I do know that Phil Jones has been involved in extensive EU funded research on some of the older datasets and endorsed the general accuracy of the older records.
We must also remember that when Manley cleaned up the CET records he;
a) rounded up temperatures to the nearest degree
b) Allowed for uhi from 1974 (but a very inadequate amount)
Also of course the CET stations have changed locations a number of times. All in all I think the generality of the trends (shown in the first link) can be trusted, rather than precise measurements to fractions of a degree, that the modern era has not been adjusted enough and the pre 1850 era probably adjusted too much.
I think the increase in temperatures can be almost wholly attributed to the decreasing cold of the winter period-winter does of course show the greatest variability. If we were to look at the 6 winter months Jan-Mar and Oct-Dec i.e. when the sun is lowest in the sky and in Europe we need our heating turned on, we can see that in total the temperature increase from 1660 to the modern day totals around 8.1C during winter (aggregated for all months.)
Jan 1.5c
Feb 1 c
Mar 1.5
Oct 1.1
Nov 1.3
Dec 1.7
In summer it is only 2.6c
Apr 1 c
May .2
June flat
July .4
Aug .4
Sept .6
So a warming of the winter temperatures will have a disproportionate effect on the years overall temperature. In order to test the hypothesis that warming is primarily caused by the lessening of winter cold it would be useful to carry out several graphing exercises.
1) See if the 50 coldest winters (Dec-February) coincide with the coldest annual temperatures
2) See if the 50 warmest winters coincide with the warmest annual temperatures.
It appears to me that just one or two exceptionally cold months can bring the overall mean average for the year down substantially, similarly a couple of warm winter months will substantially increase the overall mean average.
What would be particularly interesting would to carry out a similar exercise to that conducted in the first link on other old datasets and see if the results are the same.
Basically mean average temperatures have been rising since 1690, but if the severe but episodic winter period is accounted for as the main reason for the overall mean average being dragged down substantially, it is difficult to do other than conclude that global warming within the CET record is hard to detect, let alone the catastrophic man made variety.
Tonyb
TonyB
Thanks for your 714. It is very interesting.
Let me go through this all in more detail, and I’ll get back to you later.
Regards,
Max
Max, re your #713, Geoff Beattie appears to have some involvement with Manchester Uni’s SCI (Sustainable Consumption Institute), so I think you’re correct that he’s making the most of this opportunity – while it lasts! He’s not alone – the careers of quite a few psychologists appear to be linked to sustainability; how sustainable they themselves will be, as money gets tight, remains to be seen.
Bob_FJ
Here’s one I’d like to get your opinion on.
The IPCC glossary definition of “climate” is:
Scafetta has suggested that the period be extended to 60 years (or even longer), in order to enable climate models to incorporate celestial quasi-periodic cycles which affect climate:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.4639v1.pdf
A blogger named hempster over at Bart Verheggen’s “Global Average Temperature” thread made this suggestion, and I think it makes a lot of sense, also for another reason.
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/#comment-3336
As we have seen since the HadCRUT record started in 1850, global temperature has oscillated in warming/cooling cycles with a half-cycle life of roughly 30 years and an underlying warming trend of 0.041C per decade, sort of like a sine curve on a slightly titled axis. There have been two full cycles and one half-cycle: late 19th century warming followed by turn-of-the-century cooling, early 20th century warming followed by mid-century cooling and finally the most recent late 20th century warming half-cycle.
Whether the observed 60-year cycle is related to the celestial forcings cited by Scafetta or not, the IPCC obsession on the half-cycle, which started in 1976, fits with its myopic fixation on CO2 as the major driver of climate, but is unrealistic: based on the past record (and the most recent years) this appears to be a warming half-cycle, which was preceded by a slight cooling half-cycle (1945-1975), and is possibly being followed by a new half-cycle of slight cooling.
Let’s assume IPCC gets totally cleaned up and thus retains (or regains) its relevance as a respected source of global climate information (if not it can be forgotten, in my opinion).
Part of this overhaul (if it happens) should be to become less biased and to give more weighting in the climate models to non-anthropogenic forcings, such as swings in ocean currents or those celestial cycles cited by Scafetta, at the same time expanding its definition of “climate” beyond a short 30-year “blip” (or half-cycle in the observed oscillation) in order to be able to more logically incorporate all these other factors.
What do you think?
Max
PeterM
Referring to your 56/57 from the other thread.
You continue to bring up examples of fields of science where you say it is difficult to provide empirical data based on physical observations as evidence to support a hypothesis.
There are many for evolution, for example (but there is no point going into that because it is irrelevant to our discussion here).
I cannot speak for the tectonic plate theory, but I have not seen any empirical data to invalidate this as yet (again irrelevant to our discussion).
As I pointed out to you, “climate science” is still in its infancy. I am convinced that “what we do not know” about our planet’s climate is several orders of magnitude greater than “what we do know”. It is a shame that this new scientific discipline started off with so much political, social and profit-making “baggage” that it is difficult to find any unbiased and objective active climate scientists. But that’s the way it is when a relatively small scientific sub-field becomes a multi-billion dollar big business.
But, despite all that, I have shown you empirical data, based on actual physical observations, which tend to falsify the hypothesis of dangerous AGW (see earlier posts).
The data are far from complete, but they are there (satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing SW and LW radiation, globally and annually averaged temperature of the atmosphere at the surface and in the troposphere, temperature of the upper ocean, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, etc.).
These are the data you need to search for to see if you can find empirical evidence to support the dangerous AGW hypothesis. First, you will need to define the “means of obtaining the empirical evidence” you seek and then you will need to find it and analyze it, to see if it validates or falsifies the hypothesis. That’s the process, Peter.
Lots of luck.
Max
PS In the meantime, a good start for you would be to go through the examples I gave you of empirical data based on physical observations, which do not support (or falsify) your hypothesis of dangerous AGW.
If there is a 60-year cycle, I think you have to extend the sampling period to 120 years to see it clearly. I’m sure a geologist would prefer a few millennia, though!
James P
Good point. I agree that a 120-year cycle would make more sense (Scafetta actually also stated that a longer cycle would be more meaningful).
Max
PS Going to “geological” time scales would make most politicians too uneasy (they usually think in election cycles, which are much shorter).
PeterM (re #56 on the “hockeystick” thread – as are all references in this post unless stated otherwise):
First, let’s be clear about one thing: there is no reason at all why the requirement that a hypothesis be supported by empirical evidence should be any less applicable to climate science than it is to all other branches of science. Yes, it can be a tough requirement – but it’s the discipline that’s proved to be a powerful tool in learning how the universe works. If that requirement represents an obstacle that’s impossible for proponents of the dangerous AGW hypothesis to overcome, that demonstrates the weakness of their hypothesis not of the requirement. I agree that climate science is still in its infancy – but that doesn’t enable it to ignore this basic scientific discipline.
Thus, for example, if (as you surprisingly seem to accept) it‘s impossible to provide such evidence in support of the contention that mankind’s GHG emissions were the principal cause of late twentieth century warming, that’s the plainest demonstration of the weakness of the contention and therefore of the overall dangerous AGW hypothesis. As Max has shown (#55) there is, in fact, plenty of relevant data – the problem (for you) is that it doesn’t support the hypothesis.
You seem to have acquired the curious notion that empirical evidence can be identified only by experimentation or testing of the type usually associated with, for example, particle physics. Not so: the observation and measurement of data from the natural world can be equally valuable (some might say more valuable): consider evolution, astronomy, plate tectonics, etc. – including much of medicine. The key is the replicable observation and testing of physical data, whether in the laboratory or in the natural world.
I’ll end with a quotation from Leonardo da Vinci’s notebook:
(Richter, Literary Works of Leonardo, #1148 A.)
PS: as Max has noted, I’ve already answered your #54 (see #44 and #46) and, especially in view of the above, I don’t think it’s necessary to do so again. But, if you wish me to, I’ll gladly comply.
Robin and Max,
There is plenty of empirical data to support what the IPCC and just about every recognised scientific body in the world are saying about AGW. Its just one of those denier myths that its just about computer modelling.
See for example: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
I’m sure I’ve given you this before but somehow you seem to argue that the empirical data somehow doesn’t qualify if it gives you an answer you don’t like!
Despite what Robin has said he still hasn’t answered the previous question properly.
But now I notice that he is saying that it isn’t quite so “impossible” if the data is to the contrary!
So can I just get this straight: Are you still saying that it is is impossible to define a means of supporting, or even invalidating, what you always refer to as the “dangerous AGW hypothesis”? Yes/No Please delete whichever does not apply!
Max, Reur 717;
First of all, I think that trying to impose linear trends on something that is not linear is uhm, what’s the word: (?) inappropriate. You may recall my enquiries that were all deleted over at RC concerning “consensus-definitive 30-year trends”. For instance, I enquired what was the 30-year trend between 1925 & 1955.…. (= flat)….. Deleted.
There does seem to be a ~ 60-year cycle that is crudely sinusoidal. Furthermore, the current plateau looks remarkably similar to that of around 1940. However, beyond hypotheses, we don’t know what caused the cycles seen in the shortish time to date, or whether they will continue.
I can’t see how these cycles would be incorporated into climate models, given their unknown cause, and an anticipated resistance by the modellers to any assumed continuance of them.
Meanwhile, it should be broadcast that the climate models, that are already based on an array of assumptions (guesses) and various tunings, do not include any rationale for these observed cycles. (If the temperature records are correct)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My word, your reference is a very busy thread, and an opportunity to engage with alarmists:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/#comment-5687
There is also an Open Thread, but slower moving
Robin,
empirical-evidence-for-human-caused-global-warming
Max, Further my 723,
By coincidence, on this wet wintry day, I’ve just stumbled upon this concerning recent paper on the temperature records by Anthony Watts and Joe D‘Aleo, that I‘d heard about but not seen:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html
I wrote in 723:
[the models] do not [cannot] include any rationale for these observed cycles. (If the temperature records are correct)
Can we be sure that there is a 60-year cycle?
ALL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
‘Tis the official start of the snow-ski season this w/end, and skiers have good reason to be happy.
Melbourne water reserves are up about 6% on this time last year, but there is a potential problem with a predicted locust plague come spring hatchings that will be the worst for about 40 years. Losses in crops said to be about $2 billion without effective intervention