THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hi Bob_FJ
Your graph comparing temperature with ENSO cycles and atmospheric CO2 tells a pretty convincing story that Peter should note in order to broaden his outlook on climate forcing factors.
It is clear that all temperature records agree in goose-step that ENSO has a much more significant direct impact on temperature than CO2.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Yes, yes we’ll come to the early 20th century later.
But first lets try to find out why you continue to write sentences like “The 8-year 21st century cooling period was indeed unprecedented..”
This is the last 8 years:
Look! No Cooling! And Before you try to rubbish the source of the data let me just remind you that it came from your link.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
Why do you persist with your self delusions? You should be saying “Sorry, Pete, I’ve had it all wrong. I was mistakenly thinking that the earth’s climate was cooling for the last eight years at an ‘unprecendented’ rate. Thank you for pointing out that it was actually warming. I now realise that what the guys from the IPCC have been struggling to get me to understand is actually all true.”
Bob
Your graph is very interesting and has saved me a job as it was on my list of things to do!
Truth to tell I think it is far more significant than the co2 graphs I produce as I think it pinpoints the actual main cause of warming/ cooling. However it is co2 that is the ‘poster boy’ of the IPCC which needs to be demolished or proven, which is why I concentrate on it. Good stuff!
We had a conversation a little while ago about the currents and I remember posting some information culled from Climate Audit. This related to the conditions between Tahiti/Darwin said to drive ENSO. Did you take your information from those data points or have you used other ones-if so what?
Max
I have just spent three hours writing an abstract for the Environment agency conference entitled ‘Climate change-have we been this way before?’
I am not expecting a reply let alone an invitation to speak, as the subject is totally against the current Defra/British Government position. I will hear by December 8th. I’m not holding my breath!
If I am asked to speak I will expect you in the audience clapping loudly and shouting ‘Hes right!’ at various points.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
Two questions:
Why have you started the 21st century with the year 2000 rather than the year 2001 (the official start of the 21st century)?
Why have you truncated the almost complete year 2008 from your curve?
Are you guilty of cherry picking?
For shame!
Start with 2001 and put 2008 on the curve and you will see an unprecedented slight 8-year cooling trend, as I’ve been telling you all along.
It’s no big deal, Peter, as I have also been telling you all along.
It’s just the first 8-year period of slight cooling since the anthropogenic global cooling scare of the 1970s.
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
Hansen’s quotation regarding cap and trade schemes, “The rules are too complex and it creates an entirely new class of lobbyists and fat cats”, hits the nail on the head.
One of those “fat cats” posed to get even “fatter” from this scheme is none other than his advisee, Al Gore.
I agree with Hansen in rejecting cap and trade, but I totally disagree with his alternate proposal of a carbon tax.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB
Re 2978. Hope you do get the opportunity to present your study to the environmental conference.
When is this scheduled to take place?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
I know how much you enjoy drawing and posting graphs, but I thought I’d save you the trouble this time.
Here is the Hadley temperature record for the 21st century. One curve ends with year 2007 and the other goes up to the present. Both show cooling, but the most recent one shows a bit more.
Best regards,
Max
Re: #2978, TonyB
I hope that we will get a preview of the abstract on this thread.
Hi Peter,
I’m sure you’ll be pleased to learn that the Arctic sea ice has recovered back to a slightly greater extent than there was in November 1996.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Nov/N_11_area.txt
As you can see, it now stands at 10.63 square km, compared to 10.56 square km in November 1996.
The really good news is that it has regained half of what it had lost (compared to baseline) at its low point in November 2006.
Always happy to pass on a bit of good news to cheer you up a bit, Peter.
Regards,
Max
PS Is it reacting to the recent cooling which Hadley is seeing?
Hi Peter,
A bit more good news for you.
The Antarctic sea ice is continuing its growth and now stands at 16.56 sq km or 2% above the 1979-2000 mean baseline for November.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Nov/S_11_area.txt
The really good news is that globally (north and south) the sea ice is now within just a bit more than 1% below the 1979-2000 mean baseline for November.
So both the penguins and the polar bears should be happy.
Regards,
Max
Max
I would refer back to your #2716 when you gave estimates of carbon in various sinks and sources etc.
In your opinion could an amount of around 200,000 million metric tons be exchanged over a year, or perhaps two, between the various sinks and sources e.g. from the atmosphere into the oceans and plants and soil, or from those back into the atmosphere?
Please keep to MMT as I don’t want to confuse scales!
TonyB
TonyB,
I understand that becks work was given a cool reception even at Climate Audit, have things moved on. The warmers state that other CO2 measuring sites show similar CO2 levels as that of ML, is this fact and where are these sites.
Hi Peter,
Here is another “riddle” for you.
Why does IPCC redefine the century to fit the desired “message”?
IPCC won a “smoke and mirrors” gold medal in its AR4 report (2007) for redefining the 20th century.
Previously, in its TAR report (2001), IPCC had used the conventional 20th century definition of 1901-2000. Over this period, IPCC noted a rise in global temperature (as recorded by Hadley) of 0.6°C. [Note: A closer look at the Hadley record shows that this was actually 0.65°C, but one should not quibble about a discrepancy of merely 0.05°C per century.]
In AR4 IPCC tells us that the 1906-2005 warming was 0.74°C. [A glance at the Hadley record confirms this new figure.]
So far, so good.
But now we get into the “smoke and mirrors”.
In its 2007 “Summary for Policymakers” report, IPCC informs the “policymakers”, “Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The updated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C [0.56°C to 0.92°C] is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C].”
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
A closer look at the Hadley record shows that
· the apparent “increase” of 0.14°C (0.74°C – 0.6°C) is really only 0.09°C (0.74°C – 0.65°C).
· 70% of this increase resulted from eliminating the sharp cooling period from 1901 to 1906, rather than from accelerated warming from 2000 to 2005, as claimed by IPCC.
Ouch!
Peter, do you have any explanation for this obvious duplicity on the part of IPCC?
Appreciate any comments you might have.
Regards,
Max
Hi Tony,
Reur 2986.
The figures I have seen for carbon balance are expressed in GtC (gigatons of carbon equivalent = 1,000 million metric tons of carbon or 44 / 12 * 1,000 = 3,670 MMT of CO2.
Ahlbeck reports a “pre-industrial” annual absorption rate of 220 GtC/year (220,000 MMT/year carbon) to cold ocean water and growing biomass, which is essentially balanced by an emission of 220 GtC/year.
http://www.john-daly.com/ahlbeck/ahlbeck.htm
This checks with your estimate.
Other studies show that photosynthesis absorbs a slightly greater amount (110 GtC/year or 110,000 MMT carbon) than is released from plant decay, plant burning and respiration. This is expected to increase as higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (plants) and ocean (phytoplankton) plus slightly warmer temperatures contribute to a more rapid rate of photosynthesis.
Annual variations show that the cold surface ocean water absorption / warm surface ocean water emission balance appears to vary strongly from year to year.
Ahlbeck states, “When the global mean temperature has been high, the equilibrium has changed towards a slightly higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, probably because of decreased solubility of carbon dioxide in the warmer ocean water.”
If one simply compares the percentage of human CO2 that “remains” in the atmosphere, it appears that this is significantly higher in warmer years (up to 90%) than in colder years (below 20%). Is this a result of variations in the cold surface ocean water absorption / warm surface ocean water emission balance as Ahlbeck postulates?
I have not seen any well-founded estimates on the carbon exchange between the surface ocean waters and the deep ocean. One study shows an estimate of 15 GtC (15,000 MMT carbon), but gives no basis for this estimate. Other studies give a higher estimate.
Ahlbeck writes, “As the diffusional mass transfer from the backmixed surface to deep ocean water is slow, the continuous increase of the carbon content of the backmixed surface layer of the ocean will increase the equilibrium partial pressure at the boundary layer of the ocean, thus reducing the enhancing effect of the increased atmospheric concentration on the mass transfer rate from the air to the ocean. On the other hand, the diffusional mass transfer rate from the surface layer to the deep ocean will also increase due to an increase of the concentration gradient.”
If Ahlbeck is right this could mean that a larger amount of carbon will be absorbed by the deep ocean. This “sink” is estimated to represent 40,000 GtC (40,000,000 MMT carbon), so the puny human emissions (~8GtC/year or 8,000 MMT carbon) would hardly be noticed, especially since they are limited by the total amount of Earth’s available fossil fuels.
But, to summarize, I think you are on a good path with an annual exchange of around 200,000 million metric tons carbon.
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob #2987
Steve McIntyre asked me not to post on this subject at CA. They had a long discussion about it in 2007 and decided that Beck did not fit into their criteria of auditing material contained in the IPCC reports.
Obviously Beck is also considered ‘fringe’ and CA want to protect their hard won respect. No quibbles on that at all. In my opinion Beck released his first papers too early, without realising he would be torn apart by the warmists. He would have changed some of the graphs and put more warnings against some of the data he knows is questionable if he had his time again.
I started this rather sceptical of his work myself. However I have found him formidably well researched and very knowlegable on his subject. Having done my own research into the usage of co2 from 1820 and examined the quality of the scientists and equipment (which I posted here) I have no doubts that many of the supposedly high readings are correct.
This of course means the ice cores must be wrong, which is very difficult to prove as it is a highly terchnical subject which those involved in it passionately defend. We had that debate a few weeks ago here, but it is one I intend to return to as both Beck AND the ice cores can’t be right!
With regards to the second part of your post I will comment as follows;
Due to the history of Scripps it has managed to achieve some notable concessions. Keeling developed the current measuring standards (and wrote part of the IPCC report) and NOAA and IPCC had accepted these procedures.
Consequently things are done according to their methodology and the global net of certified sampling stations deliver CO2 data (WDCGG) according to his standard. The Scripps institute and some other licenced institutes has the monopoly for the reference gases and Scripps the calibration monopoly. The payments for these can be found in their annual accounts. There is nothing at all underhand about this as they need to earn money, but it does mean that things have to be done ‘the Scripps way’
The following link concerns oceanic co2 measurements and shows the sterilised sea water sold to other institutions as a reference point.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/refmaterials.shtml
Consequently All measurements in the global network are done to this standard. There are other CO2 measurement centres, not certified by the WMO so they wouldn’t be ‘official’. The following explains the standards
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/refgases/airstandard.html
So institutions do things according to scripps standards and methodolgy, and they also have a monopoly on providing the reference gases and calibration. Consistency is important when taking measurements, but obviously if all institutions are working to the same set of data they will come up with similar answers.
Modern readings probably vary by more than is realised, and the location, height, weather (for mixing) all will mean the current 385ppm is a bit of a moveable feast.
It is not the modern measurements I am so concerned about, but those prior to 1958-about which I hope to post more once I get an answer from Max to my #2986
TonyB
Hi Tony B,
For the annual exchange between the surface ocean and the deep ocean I just wrote, “One study shows an estimate of 15 GtC (15,000 MMT carbon), but gives no basis for this estimate.”
This is an error. The estimate is 15 Gt per year on a CO2 basis (rather than carbon). This is equivalent to 4 GtC (4,000 MMT carbon) per year.
Sorry for mixup.
Regards,
Max
Max
Thanks for confirming all that.
You will remember the first Mencken graph I posted here was this one;
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/mencken.xls
This showed Hadley temperatures back to 1660 overlaid with human co2 emissions- as estimated by cdiac/IPCC, back to 1750
Since then I have created a number of graphs but thought you would be particularly interested in the following as it covers Zurich-with the modest UHI correction.
(I have also done this for Hadley)
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_zurich_uhi.xls
This graph has been re-designed to show the TOTAL amount of co2 in million metric tons (MMT) and not just human emissions (as on the first graph). It also shows PPM (both scales on right hand side) and temperature (left hand graphs.)
At the extreme bottom of the graph is the total man made emissions again. This time it is set against the context of ALL co2-which as you know is overwhelmingly natural in origin. I have not put in the 50 year decomposition rate as the line would become even more invisible!
The green dots are co2 measurements taken from becks paper referenced under-not all are considered reliable.
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/Bad_Honnef/bhonnef1e.htm
You can see that all the co2 action takes place between roughly 600,000mmt and 850,000mmt which corresponds to approx 275 to 385ppm. To account for the considerable variability in the Beck readings there has to be a potential annual movement (or perhaps over several years) in order to go from the highest to lowest reading of around 250,000mmt. The human contribution to this appears to be zero-it all comes from outgassing or absorption from the various sinks and sources.
Co2 levels appear to be a good indicator of whether the climate is warm or cold, but does not accurately correspond to a specific temperature.
As we know actual co2 measurements from 1958 to 2008, the graphs can be positioned fairly accurately. This allows the ‘actual’ readings taken from 1820 onwards, to be reasonably estimated by looking along to the right hand scales.
Beck gave me some 12 measurements he considered particularly reliable, which I have researched separately. They are extraordinarily accurate.
You will be pleased to hear that Saussure measuring at Lake Geneva in 1827 appears to be about the most accurate of the lot, so for nearly two hundred years scientists have been perfectly capable of taking accurate co2 readings. As I mentioned to Bob this means the ice cores must be suspect, so a return to this subject apears inevitable I’m afraid!
Your comments are very welcome.
TonyB
Max,
I hope we aren’t going to get into one of those pedantic arguments about whether the 21st century started as the year rolled over to 2000 or whether the celebrations should have waited for another year.
The figures aren’t in for 2008 yet, and the last eight years of complete data are the years 2000 to 2007 which show a slight warming.
You are probably right in saying that the years 2001 to 2008 will turn out to show a slight cooling, but you are certainly wrong when you say that this will be the “first 8-year period of slight cooling since the anthropogenic global cooling scare of the 1970s”
It is just part of a general pattern, which is easily seen in the temperature records of the last 50 years or more. Eight years or so of fairly level temperatures, or even a slight cooling, followed by a rapid jump.
Currently the solar cycle is at its minimum. The Pacific Ocean has been in its La Lina cool phase. As these conditions change in the next few years we’ll see another sharp jump in world temperatures as the pattern continues.
Hi Peter,
You are beating a dead horse (2993).
The 21st century started officially on January 1, 2001.
The first seven years of the 21st century showed a slight cooling (as the graph I posted shows).
The first seven and 10/12 years (January 2001 through October 2008) showed a somewhat greater cooling (as the graph I posted also shows).
I suspect that this will not change appreciably in a few days when Hadley presents their November numbers.
Let’s wait another few weeks to see if this accelerated cooling trend holds up for all of 2008.
Peter, I can see that you are having an agonizing time accepting the fact that global warming stopped around the end of the millenium. That’s what the record shows. Not only Hadley, but also GISS, UAH and RSS confirm this 21st century cooling trend.
Is this the start of a longer-term cooling trend as solar scientists estimate?
Is it just a short-term anomaly?
In either case, it shows clearly that the IPCC forecast for 0.2C per decade warming in the early 21st century has not materialized as the climate models predicted (good news for AGW doomsayers actually!).
These are observed facts, Peter. Hadley (or Pachauri) rationalizations of “continued anthropogenic warming masked by natural phenomena” are total BS. It’s either warming or not. And right now it is not warming, but cooling, despite all-time record human CO2 emissions.
Those are the facts, Peter.
Neither you nor I (nor, least of all, the climate models cited by IPCC) can tell us what will happen in the future, but for now, global warming has stopped.
So let’s move on to a more fruitful discussion rather than rehashing the same old stuff over and over again. OK?
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
Reur 2992
Your conclusion that the ice core data (and cherry-picked analytical results) are not representative of pre-Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentrations appears to me to be valid.
I know you are questioning a “sacred cow” here (that even ClimateAudit does not want to challenge at this time).
Your second conclusion that human CO2 is such a small part of the puzzle that it cannot be the cause for global warming is also very clear, as the numbers show (and as has been confirmed by the temperature record, as well).
I think you are on the right track.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of “vested interests” that want human CO2 to be the cause for a global warming that has (as yet) hardly been noticeable, but (based on climate model outputs) will soon be disastrous for humanity, other species and our planet itself.
So you are “swimming against the current”.
But I am convinced that truth will eventually prevail, so don’t give up.
Someone has to “keep them honest”.
Regards,
Max
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
2008 – A TIPPING POINT?
An email from David Whitehouse [me@davidwhitehouse.com]
In a few weeks the data will be in on the global average temperature for 2008. Although one should always be wary about assumptions regarding data (the December data hasn1t been measured yet) it does seem highly likely that 2008 will continue the trend seen in recent years (since 2001) of no increase in global temperatures. In most people’s minds the question is how much cooler it will turn out to be than previous years. Personally, I expect the errors will make it unlikely that anything other than a flat line will be justifiable, but I may be wrong.
Given this, the spin regarding these figures has already begun presumably intended to avoid any misinterpretation by so-called climate skeptics and the media. This is what I expect.
In January’s press releases about the data it will no doubt be emphasised that as 2008 was in the top ten or fifteen warmest years since records began it shows that global warming is still taking place. Take a look at the UK Met Office ‘Fact 2’ in their section on their website on climate change myths. It says that despite the static trend the public are not to be confused as global warming is continuing, as the last decade is warmer than the pervious one. Therefore the long-term trend is for rising temperatures. This is a misleading approach to the data ignoring parts of the data that are in some people1s view problematic (it is the same approach as adopted by the IPCC). True, the last decade is warmer than the previous one, nobody is seriously disputing that, but the important question is has it got any warmer in the past decade. The answer to that direct question is obviously that the data says no, it hasn’t.
But does it matter? Is the fact that the world hasn1t got any warmer since 1998 and has had an impeccably constant temperature since 2001 of any significance? This period has been called a ‘short interval’ and the lack of change merely ‘year on year variability.’ Frankly, this analysis is wearing thin. It is beginning to strain credibility to ascribe 2008 to yet another example of unchanging ‘year on year variability.’
The recent warming trend began in 1980 and continued to 1998. During that time there was a general temperature increase modified by the Pinatubo and El Chichon volcanic eruptions and the 1998 strong El Nino. Without the 1998 El Nino the increase would not have been so great, shown by the fact that when it subsided the temperature declined and did not continue to increase.
Since 1998 there were two cooler years then a slight increase and since 2001 there has been no increase, the difference between years being much smaller than the error of measurement. Another important point is that since 1998 there has been no volcanic effect. It is the effect of Pinatubo and El Chicon, coupled with a selective choice of time intervals, that can falsely give the impression through the judicious use of ‘trend lines’ that there were periods of standstill and temperature decline between 1980 and 1998 and that therefore the post 2001 standstill is nothing unusual.
It is now obvious that the recent global warming period has two components – a rise between 1980 and 1997-8 and a subsequent standstill.
It has been said that this was not unexpected and that nobody ever said there would be an ever increasing rise in temperature even as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increased. Ups and down were always part of the picture. Well, just look at the IPCC reports and find where they said that? Until mid 2007 many scientists refused to even countenance the idea that there could possibly be a standstill.
That has now changed. Nobody can ignore this data any more. If nothing else the important paper in Nature earlier this year by Keenlyside et al showed that the change in the data required an explanation which they suggested was due to ocean turnover. Despite this some scientists savagely attacked the Keenlyside paper showing that there is no scientific consensus about global warming data.
One should also raise the important point that if the observed period of global warming was, as is claimed by some, so unusual and strong then why have natural processes been able to counteract it so effectively. I thought the whole point was that man’s effects were greater than that produced by natural processes!
One should also ask why the annual global temperature has remained constant when the CO2 concentration is going ever upward. The effect of increasing CO2, according to the greenhouse hypothesis, is to provide a ‘force’ that drives temperature up. For each year that the temperature remains constant and the CO2 increases the greater is that force. This implies that whatever is keeping the earth at a constant temperature is increasing its effectiveness in step with increasing CO2 and having to produce more and more cooling each year to maintain a constant temperature. This is a highly unphysical and contrived situation.
In climate terms ten years is long enough to get an indication of what is going on and to smooth out any yearly variability. One should not read too much into it but the data is not meaningless and should not be ignored or dismissed as statistical fluctuation. Remember that when James Hansen testified in front of the US Government about the perils of global warming he did so in 1988 with less than a decade of credible warming data to back up his views. If one was generous with an interpretation of his analysis of the available scientific data of the time one would say he was acting in precautionary mode. But what is the difference in terms of science and philosophy from using less than a decade of warming data to say ‘look there might be something going on here’ from looking at a longer period of no increase of global average temperatures and saying ‘look there may be something going on here.’
Also, I wonder if is too much to hope for a more good natured and scientifically informed debate about these figures and not have accusations of lying and spreading disinformation on behalf of big oil and conservative think tanks. This is a clich‚, unscientific, inaccurate and increasingly missing the point as more and more reputable scientists ask serious questions about what is going on. To respond to such scientific enquiry with snide innuendo and implied associations is to spread disinformation. Next time someone insists there is no problem with the global warming data and attacks the credibility of those who ask a perfectly reasonable scientific question, ask yourself where their beliefs come from? Perhaps they make a living writing unbalanced books and op eds about the impending catastrophe, or make a living studying it, and therefore have a vested interest. Worse, perhaps they believe that unscientific extremism is justified to get the public’s attention.
The graphs we will see in January about the 2008 data and the 1980 – 2008 warming period will no doubt have their x-axis squashed so that the past ten years are not easily discernable. The temperature axis will be expansive and one-sigma error bars will be used. If the data were published with two-sigma bars and just for the past 50 years then they would give an entirely different impression.
But don’t worry. It will all pick up in 2009. The UK Met office has said that global warming will begin in earnest in 2009 because by that time greenhouse emissions will overtake natural climate variability!
So that’s the world we live in, spin and disinformation by vested interests who find real world data inconvenient – data deniers. The world is warmer than in previous decades but is, for the moment at least, not getting warmer, despite as one scientist from the Tyndall Centre said ‘since 2000 the world has gone ballistic in terms of carbon emissions.’ Global warming is coming, next year, or in a decade or so after understandable global cooling. If temperature increases it is global warming, if it does otherwise it is climate change.
Leave the models to one side for a moment and ponder that the only way to prove the global warming hypothesis is wrong is if the temperatures doesn’t rise as the CO2 does. If that happened what will real world data look like?
Max,
The point which the IPCC are making is that we can expect a temperature rise of about 0.2 deg C per decade for the early part of the 21st century. It won’t make much real difference if we take the century to start at the year 2000 or 2001.
I’m not sure what predictions were made in 1976 but if they had predicted 0.2deg C rise per decade for the rest of the century they would have been pretty close. The actual figure was 0.17deg C per decade. And yet there were two distinct 8 year periods when there was a slight cooling. Besides the 1987 to 1994 cooling that I’ve already posted up, there was also this one
The present period of flattish temperatures is no different, certainly not “unequivocally unprecendented” , and can’t be used, at least by anyone of any intelligence, to suggest that the IPCC have got it wrong.
If you remember, we do have a small bet on whether the 1998 figure will be exceeded in the next few years. Care to double that to say $200 ?
TonyB, Reur 2978,
You wrote in part to me:
My ENSO graphic information has been pasted from:
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
There is also tabulated ONI (ENSO) data 1950 to Sep 08 @ NOAA:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
There is also the PDO, and here is a compilation against Hadley SST’s, I did back in June 2008 over at CA, BB . The image takes a lot of vertical page space, So I’ll just give the URL:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3211/3078712018_fcd5faa0b6_b.jpg
Tony, I’ll talk to you later about my perception on Steve Mc’s caution about Beck.
TonyB,
Max wrote to you in part in his 2995:
I want to endorse that, but these Swiss, I suggest, tend to pussy-foot around in politeness.
In Oz, we would emphatically say:
“Someone has to keep the bastards honest”.
Gird thy loins Tony!
Perhaps take-up some form of karate?
Brute, Reur 2996:
Nice post!
We missed you for a while here.
Hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving, which I guess from your stated religious beliefs is important to you.
Was my image of you being sumptuously reclined and being fed peeled grapes by lovely maidens perhaps over-the-top?
Never mind if I caused offence, bear in mind that I’m one of those Aussie bastards!
Welcome back!!!!!!!!!!!