Peter Taylor’s CHILL: a Reassessment of Global Warming Theory is really two books in one. The first part covers the science of climate change in exhaustive detail and provides an alternative to the orthodox view. Taylor, who has impeccable green credentials, describes “the technocratic and communalist approach” in a masterly analysis of how we arrived at this point through “a combination of zealotry which somehow has managed to portray the science as unequivocal when it’s not”. The second part covers policy, politics and remedies.

A main theme of the first part of the book is that we take too linear a view of
climate-trend projections, without recognising past patterns and cycles
which could include future cooling. I am comfortable with that notion, as any observer of history is provided with clear evidence that climate oscillates in numerous
cycles of warm and cold periods.

Readers who believe Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, and who consider the IPCC
climate assessments are factual, unbiased and objective, will not like this
book. As Taylor says: “It is clear to me that IPCC has made such a forthright commitment to the standard (Co2 ) policy model, that it has a biased attitude to new data that does not conform to that model.” And:

“It is striking that a small group of men working behind computer screens created a virtual reality in which the future climate became the enemy of mankind. That original cabal was likely innocent of any underhand motivation and genuinely believed mankind faced a threat and that they would sound the alert and potentially stave off disaster. But sociologists will go a little bit further and look at the social environment that pawned the very concepts of the climate game, many of which we take entirely for granted. For example the notion that humanity itself can be under threat or that the planet might need to be saved. These are very recent notions, at least from a societal perspective, and do not bear closer scientific scrutiny. “

This book is a breath of fresh air in pointing out the numerous contradictions in the orthodox climate science camps that believe themselves uniquely exempt to the notion that they should actually prove their scientific hypotheses – that by altering the climate and doubling Co2 emissions, mankind will cause a rise in temperatures of up to 6 degrees C.
The author clinically examines areas of uncertainty, plain misunderstandings, and assertions in the existing ‘consensus’ by reviewing numerous high quality ‘contrarian’ papers that rarely receive much coverage in the science and popular media, which is obsessed with the notion of anthropogenic global warming. Climate science is a very small world with authors frequently peer reviewing each other’s papers, some of which might be based on their own work in the first place (Google US Congress hearing by Wegman). Also, they often pronounce on subjects of which they have little
knowledge. When talking of Solanki – a leading solar scientist – Taylor comments:

“This is another classic example of senior scientists publishing in the peer
reviewed literature and commenting on issues entirely outside of their field,
such as carbon dioxide and atmospheric physics, without reference to other
entire fields of relevant climatology, seriously compromised by
compartmented approach or political correctness in the face of
‘controversial’ science.”

That Taylor – and many other commentators –  believes that even the IPCC’s
lowest Co2/temperature rise scenario exaggerates its case by at least a
factor of three is amply illustrated, and as the author demonstrates, sea
levels and temperatures have obviously not read the IPCC’s script.

Having demolished what currently passes for peer reviewed and settled
science, Taylor moves on to remedies and the consequences of the politics in
the second part of his book. He argues that we are not doing enough to adapt to
inevitable changes, and that in particular we are vulnerable to the climate
cooling, for which there is no ‘Plan B’ whatsoever. The author believes many
of the actions for mitigating the supposed impacts of warming are counter
productive. He stresses the need to create ‘resilient systems’ to cope with
all eventualities. As the author says in examining the ‘collusion of
interests’ he has identified; “I can see how it works to everyone’s interest
to believe in the scary climate story.”

This excellent but lengthy book deals with a difficult subject and therefore
its structure is especially important to ensure accessibility and achieve
the influence it deserves, but in this there are problems. For example,
omitting the chapter number at the head of each page yet referring to
chapter numbers in the text was irritating, as wer the constant references to
papers placed on the author’s web site. As much of the science is complex
and multi-layered, it cannot be read like a novel at one go, so it would be
useful to provide a chapter summary. Also I felt it was missing a chapter on
the IPCC’s politics, rationale and peer review processes, that would
illustrate how they became part of the ‘collusion of interests’ intent on scaring
everyone to death when really we have far more important things to worry
about. Nevertheless, the book remains essential and provocative reading.

Finally, to extract from the major review of the science in the first part
of the book is not easy, given the volume of material covered. But here is a
dip into the section on ocean cycles (page 131), which illustrates the tone
of the message:

“The oceans play a crucial role in the absorption and dissipation of heat
over decadal and millennial timescales and with distinct cyclic patterns.
These patterns are poorly understood and not replicated in global warming
models, and any conclusions drawn with respect to those models being able to
isolate an anthropogenic global warming signal must be regarded as unproven
and unlikely”.

These are brave words from a career environmentalist who has managed to keep his head when all around him are losing theirs.

CHILL: a Reassessment of Global Warming Theory
Peter Taylor
Clairview Books, 2009, 404 pages
£14.99 Pbk  ISBN  978 1 905570 19 5

[or try www.abebooks.co.uk  –  TonyN]

For a profile of Peter Taylor follow the link;

http://www.clairviewbooks.com/pages/viewauthor.php?id_in=29

421 Responses to “Peter Taylor’s CHILL: an environmentalist’s very cool look at global warming”

  1. Jack #225.

    Good (old) point, well made.

    AhmNee,

    Good points regarding trends and consensus. I always use the line “50,000 people can’t be wrong” as a good example of the dangers of a ‘consensus’.

    Max #239.

    Why did you link the questions from a blog instead of the official source, which I already provided? There are no differences, but I just wonder why you prefer dodgy sources over official ones?

    I thought the questions were answered adequately, mostly because they showed the weak logic and poor understanding of the original questions.

    For example the first question’s logic goes: Between 1998 and 2009 temperature went down and co2 went up, hence co2 and temperature are not linked.

    Answer. Energy is not just temperature. 1998 is an unusual starting point and the total period is unusually short for an analysis like this. Natural variation plays an important role. This is an old question that you can answer yourself if you just read up on it.
    As for the blanket statement, I’ll retract it ‘cause I don’t have the time to follow it up in the detail you require.

  2. As for 4.2 p.5, quoted from Idso & Singer (2009 p. 136) in http://www.auscsc.org.au/images/PDF/wongsreplytoquestions.pdf

    “global data on glaciers do not support claims made by the ipcc that most glaciers are retreating or melting”

    I didn’t list any others ‘cause that was not my point. I asked why it was acceptable to only consider one review when there are plenty available. I’m just an amateur, so all I did was search “glacier research” into google scholar and found:

    http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/3/285

    “Mountain glaciers are key indicators of climate change, although the climatic variables involved differ regionally and temporally. Nevertheless, there has been substantial glacier retreat since the Little Ice Age and this has accelerated over the last two to three decades. Documenting these changes is hampered by the paucity of observational data.”

    Maybe something from 2009?

    “The available data from the six decades indicate a strong ice loss as early as the 1940s and 1950s followed by a moderate mass loss until the end of the 1970s and a subsequent acceleration that has lasted until now, culminating in a mean overall ice loss of over 20 m w.e. for the period 1946-2006.”

    I’d go on but it’s a waste of time here. You don’t understand simple logic and don’t read statements properly. I’m off to read Peter’s book. Bye.

  3. JH

    With respect, you have been rather selective yourself. Climate works in cycles, some aspects of it over much longer periods than others, in a way we don’t yet begin to understand.

    Glaciers have certainly been retreating since the end of the little ice age. It has got warmer since the end of the little ice age-is that a surprise? Would you seriously try to claim our recovery from it is due to man?

    If you look further back though there are numerous examples in the human timescale of glacier retreat. I recently quoted the jakobshaven example from 1820 which had been observed to have retreated at that time to similar levels to today. In living memory (of that time) it had been further advanced.

    The ice berg that sank the Titanic also came from this source as the glacier melted yet again, in a very well documented melting of the arctic that lasted until 1940.

    Studies of glaciers in Roman times demonstrate snow and glacier lines were much higher than today. This enabled the Romans to move their armies round high level passes in a way that would not be possible today.

    If climate teaches us anything it is that we need to look at the broader picture. The CRU figures you are used to seeing from 1850 don’t pick up the remarkable warm periods prior to that, of which the early 1800’s and particularly 1710-1740 are notable examples.

    Looking at the broader sweep of history puts todays circustances into a proper context.

    Peter Taylor writes of these cycles and I am sure you will enjoy reading the science behind it and also the second part of his book which concerrns motivations,

    Tonyb

  4. Max, sorry, but I’m about to scold you!
    I’ve earlier concluded and recommended that any discussion with Peter Martin is pointless, and that he should be ignored. Surely, his 250, which is (?) in response to your 248 is further evidence of that! You asked for a plain YES or NO answer to a very simple and clear question, and what do you get but six paragraphs of puerile crap. Why do you persist with him?…. The thread is not only going OT, but rather boring WRT Pete exchanges!

    For brevity, I’ll just pick-out a few points from Pete’s (AKA TempTerrain etc) 250:

    “…I’m not saying that [Australian senator] Fielding is blatantly dishonest – in fact I’d be surprised if he were capable of applying a simple linear regression to the data…”

    Why should Pete be surprised, given that Fielding is an engineer, surely there is reason to think that an engineer knows a lot about graphs and data interpretation. And, Fielding did do a self-funded fact-finding trip to the U.S.A. back in June, and he also consulted Bob Carter et al locally. This sort of comment from Peter Martin, slurring the man, is just typical of him!

    On that aspect of attacking the man, Peter Martin also wrote:

    “…But Senator Fielding is a politician not a scientist. He doesn’t understand the science. Some would argue that he doesn’t understand politics or the English language very well either…”

    Er, isn’t engineering a branch of science? How does Peter Martin know to assume that Fielding doesn’t understand the science?
    Pete’s vaguely quoted opinions of “some” (his “colleagues”) deriding Fielding’s understanding of politics and of the English language is not only, by reference, deliberately insulting but is in clear contradiction of Fielding’s actual achievements. He is leader (and a senator) of a minority political party; ‘Family First’, which is NOT an easy achievement.
    Perhaps Pete might care to condemn the language understanding of a large number of other Australians who pronounce the word ’film’ (movie) as ’fillum’, or ‘vulnerable’ as ’vunnerable’, or the west Melbourne suburb ‘Footscray’ as ‘Footascray’…. etc?

    The wisdom of Pete also included:

    “…Also I would ask why choose monthly data figures? Even yearly figures are questionable. Five year rolling averages are really the minimum time sampling interval which makes any sort of scientific sense…”

    Well, a couple of obvious reasons for using monthly data is that it is more pure, and it can be used for incomplete years. (for instance 2009 cannot yet be partially shown with annual data).
    And more; Oh dear! If we refer to Pete’s 226, he has the gall to superimpose onto the monthly raw data graph his UNIQUE interpretation of 5-yearly smoothing despite that he has been advised many times on other threads that his method is WRONG. He apparently still resorts to Excel PMA (Prior Moving Average), which applies for example to say prior weekly performance levels in industry. This would be an unweighted average for the prior period, be it a week, month, or year, whatever. Inspection of Pete’s graph at 226 shows that the red curve (regardless of its shape or arbitrary weighting/filtering) starts at five years, whereas in the correct method for time-series data, with CMA 5-year smoothing, it should start at 2.5-years, and end short at 2.5 years of the end of the raw data. (CMA = Central Moving Average…. Which may be Gaussian weighted or of some other arbitrary preference)

    Oh, and CRU arbitrarily prefer 31-year simplified Gaussian smoothing, whilst GISS prefer 5-year smoothing of apparently undeclared (?) weighting.

    I could go-on, putting aside various other Pete-crap, but will that do for now?

    Oh, and BTW, his green yearly curve in 226 is also obviously out of phase with the raw data; see especially 1998

  5. Peter Martin

    Bob_FJ warned me, and you came through as expected.

    Instead of answering a yes/no question, you waffled about.

    Fielding’s 1995-2008 graph was indeed an accurate depiction of HadCRUT data, contrary to your initial suspicion that he had fudged data.

    But you are unable to admit that you were wrong in your suspicion, so you waffle on about irrelevant peripheral issues.

    Max

  6. JH

    C’mon now. I “don’t understand logic”? Isn’t that a rather silly and totally unfounded statement?

    But back to your glacier sidetrack.

    Idso tells us: “global data on glaciers do not support claims made by the IPCC that most glaciers are retreating or melting” and your report concludes “there has been substantial glacier retreat since the Little Ice Age and this has accelerated over the last two to three decades. Documenting these changes is hampered by the paucity of observational data.”

    So they both agree that global observational data are not sufficient for “documenting these changes”.

    The non-polar mountain glaciers under discussion represent less than 0.6% of our planet’s ice. The bit of data that is available (mostly from Europe where long-term records exist) indicates that most of these are receding, with some notable exceptions:

    Here are a few examples:

    Hubbard Glacier, Alaska
    http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF18/1890.html
    “Hubbard Glacier has been thickening and advancing since scientists first measured it in 1895.”

    Taku Glacier, SE Alaska
    http://www.jstor.org/pss/1552084
    “Since 1890 Taku Glacier has advanced 7.3km.”

    Glaciers in Western Norway
    http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/afp.html
    “Glaciers in western Norway are growing at record speeds, contrary to the current global trend, following heavy rain and snowfall in the 1980s and 1990s.”

    Mount Shasta, California, USA
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1A1-D91PUJO80.html
    “Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta’s flanks are a rare exception: They are the only long- established glaciers in the lower 48 states that are growing.”

    Andean Glaciers, Chile and Argentina
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090622-glaciers-growing.html
    “Perito Moreno glacier in Argentina and Pio XI glacier in Chile are taking on ice, instead of shedding it.”

    230 Himalayan Glaciers (largest in world) growing
    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/05/himalayas-glaciers.html
    “Perched on the soaring Karakoram mountains in the Western Himalayas, a group of some 230 glaciers are bucking the global warming trend. They’re growing.”
    “These are the biggest mid-latitude glaciers in the world,” John Shroder of the University of Nebraska-Omaha said. “And all of them are either holding still, or advancing.”

    OK, JH, I’ll admit that these are exceptions to the rule concerning mid-latitude glaciers, which (despite the “paucity of observational data”) appear, in general, to be shrinking.

    So the major part of 0.6% of the world’s ice is shrinking.

    But the biggest problem is that global observational data on these glaciers are largely missing, as the two references you cited concluded.

    Not really quite as clear as you would like to depict it, JH. Logical, right?

    But the point here is not about glaciers per se at all.

    It was that in your #194 you (cherry) picked out the glacier disagreement in an attempt to demonstrate that the Kininmouth et al. comments to the response by Minister Wong to the questions of Senator Fielding contained “a decent amount of flawed reasoning”, a claim which you only attempted to back up with the glacier example. Hmmm.. I’m beginning to see a flaw in your logic here, JH.

    But I suggest that the best thing for you to do is read Peter Taylor’s book, as you wrote.

    There are no lapses of logic there, JH, and you will definitely learn something new (if you keep an open mind).

    Max

  7. JH

    Back to the “non glacier” discussion.

    You state that the Minister answered Fielding’s question regarding no rise in temperature despite all time increases in CO2, by bringing in overall energy balances in the atmosphere, the cryosphere, the land mass and the oceans.

    This was a waffle, JH, in case you did not recognize it.

    IPCC, the Met Office, GISS and many more purveyors of the AGW premise have been telling us for several years now that the proof of AGW is that the globally and annually averaged land and sea surface air temperature anomalies (as measured by HadCRUT and GISS) have been steadily rising, particularly so since around 1976.

    Now they stop rising for a decade and this is suddenly irrelevant as an indicator that AGW has stopped?

    Run the logic past me on that one, JH.

    Max

  8. I’d prefer to see you keep digging :D

  9. JH

    Just a follow-up on “logic”.

    Using the “natural variability” (a.k.a. “natural forcing factor”) argument to rationalize why it has been cooling since 2001 is a dangerous trap for Australian climate minister, Dr. Wong (or Dr. Pope of the Met Office), both supporters of the premise that AGW is a potentially serious threat, caused principally by human emissions of CO2.

    Why is this so?

    IPCC has told us that “natural forcing factors” have essentially been insignificant in driving our climate from pre-industrial 1750 to around 2000 (0.12 W/m^2), and that the principal climate forcing over this period was anthropogenic (1.6 W/m^2).

    According to IPCC (and latest Met Office) forecasts as well as the projected 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, the first decade of the 21st century should have warmed by 0.2°C, but instead the first ~9 years have cooled by 0.1°C, allegedly due to “natural variability”.

    This tells us that extremely strong natural forcing factors, indeed, have been at work over this period.

    You seem to like to write about “logic”.

    Here we see the fatal flaw in the AGW “logic” that anthropogenic influences have been the principal driver of the climate changes we have seen.

    An insignificant “natural forcing” for 250 years followed by an extremely strong “natural forcing” for the following 9 years is a hard story to swallow.

    Wong and Pope should have given this obvious fatal flaw in their logic more thought before throwing out the ”natural variability” rationalization for the current cooling, because it invalidates the whole premise for AGW as the principal driver of our climate.

    What do you think, JH?

    Max

  10. Peter Taylor has an interest in climate cycles and variabilty as do I. Consequently I want to take you all on a brief journey through time to the Little Ice age thermometers that predate the CRU dataset.

    Here are CRU global temperatures commencing 1850

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

    Amongst the longer lived records are two that I wish to highlight, as they complement each other. Stockholm commenced recording in 1756

    http://www.processtrends.com/images/temp_stock_ann_trend.gif

    Interesting in itself the graph shows clear peaks and troughs, but particularly intriguing is that a couple of years ago Stockkholm recorded its mildest winter since records began (in 1756) which heralded the start of much publicity about global warming.

    However, by a delicious irony, we find that the home city of Arrenhius himself-Uppsala-had an even longer temp data set than Stockholm, from which we can see the upturn in temperatures to a period warmer than today during the 1720-1740’s which includes a series of very mild winters.

    http://www.smhi.se/content/1/c6/02/50/31/attatchments/upps_www.pdf

    Intriguingly, both cities have had substantial studies made on them to identify the Urban heat island effect. Uppsala for example expanded three fold from 1850 to 1890 and continues to develop. Both data sets are due to be amended to reflect this. (Note there are lots of caveats with siting, uhi, instrument reliability etc)

    http://www.statssa.gov.za/isi2009/ScientificProgramme/IPMS/0189.pdf

    If we look before the CRU 1850 benchmark we can clearly see considerable temperature variations belying the notion that today is unprecedented and that variability in the past was limited as co2 at 280ppm was not sufficiently high to be a primary driver, in contrast to today.

    If we then go to the granddaddy of them all Central England Temperatures (CET) not only can we see the huge temperature fluctuations each year continuing (the data is not smoothed) but a confirmation of the peaks around 1720 (when Uppsala commences) and in this case ending at a substantial trough in 1660.

    http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.jpg

    We know that temperature goes through other peaks and troughs-for examples the 1530’s and 40’s are known to have been very warm as were the 1420’s and 30’s, the 1300’s generally were very cold and a peak of warmth was reached in the Medieval warm period from around 850 to 1250AD (although there were cold spells within that.)

    To the surprise of no one we have got warmer since the end of the LIA, but we are able to see the modern era in a much better context as just part of a constant variation.

    Natural variability has enabled our present civilisation to enjoy what appears to be a period of ‘comfortable normality’ with our age comfortably placed as instrumental temperatures meander gently somewhere between the LIA and the MWP values-despite liberal enhancement of UHI in some cases.

    Our equitable situation doesn’t require legislation or expensive remedies. Enjoy it while you can- until nature throws the next extreme at us

    tonyb

  11. Max,

    I’m not sure just how the Minister [Penny Wong?] answered Fielding’s question regarding “no rise in temperature” in the last 15 years, but what she could have said, is that he should properly analyse his own graph, to see that the climate is, in fact, still warming.

    Do you agree that Fielding should have been able to see this for himself? A simple ‘Yes or No’ will do. :-)

  12. Peter Martin

    You obviously know better than the two leading lights of the climate world, who admit the situation is exactly what Senator Fielding has said with regards to temperatures:

    * Dr Vicky Pope Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met office who has just admitted temperatures have fallen, not risen, over the last decade even as co2 rises to record levels . You can hear her say it for yourself here:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/more_or_less/8248922.stm#email

    Her quote comes from the BBC’s Tim Harford item (the link is found at the bottom of the box to the right of the item “Blowing cold, then hot”).

    * Prof. Mojib Latif one of the top climate modellers in the world, lead author for the IPCC and a major contributor to their last two reports, said at the UN’s World Climate Conference recently that the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and raised the possibility of “one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.” He admits that most modellers had based their AGW theory on the belief that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the ‘greenhouse warming’ caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide which would subsequently expel that heat and warm the oceans and land, but now concedes the Atlantic has cooled unexpectedly.

    * These are the official Cru temperature figures, confirming this point on cooling since 2002. Linked below.
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

    Perhaps you have got Senator Fieldings email address as he might be intersted in the information contained in my #260 demonstrating past periods of cooling and warming?

    tonyb

  13. TonyB,

    If you start your graph at 1998 which is just about a decade ago now then you can see that temperatures have been flat.

    The Fielding graph, which does indeed show warming, started at 1995. Not 1994, and not 1996, as Max was very keen and quick to point out. This is 2009-1995 =15 years ago slightly longer than the decade which Vicki Pope mentions. Steve Fielding obviously either doesn’t understand his own graphs or he is deliberately misrepresenting their meaning.

  14. Peter Martin

    Rather than selecting the most advantageous start point-and I make no comment as to whether you or Senator Fielding are the most guilty of doing that- I am more interested in starting my graph at 1660-the earliest instrumental records available, when we can see the whole thing in much better context.

    Any comments on my #260, and do you have Senator Fieldings email so I can send him my own data on historic data sets?
    Thanks for your help.

    Best regards

    tonyb

  15. Max, Re Peter Martin’s 261
    TonyB, Re Peter Martin’s 263

    Is 261 & 263 not further confirmation of endless tosh to confirm that Pete is a crass waste of web-space?
    He clearly does not know, (or denies), the questions asked by Fielding of Oz minister Wong, or the responses, yet rather stupidly pontificates on what he may imagine they might have been!
    (unless of course he is trolling?)
    Well, I wasn’t too sure either, so to clarify the details for myself, I simply at first-shot Googled; ‘steve fielding wong (@ Australia)’, and in seconds, top of the list found:

    http://www.stevefielding.com.au/blog/comments/assessment_of_penny_wongs_response_to_my_3_questions_on_climate_change/

    Here is an extract relevant to the rubbish in 261/263 that reveals Fielding’s actual question 1 of 3. (my bold font added):
    Question 1:
    Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period (see Fig. 1)?
    If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?

    Notice too that Pete also stated in part:
    “…Steve Fielding obviously either doesn’t understand his own graphs or…”Well what utter nonsense!… they are not Steve’s graphs; HE did not invent them, and neither does he claim cooling since 1995 as inanely declared by Pete!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    TonyB, if you go to the link above, right down the bottom is ‘Contact us’ which provides (unfortunately only) a pro forma Email capability. But, it might enable a more fruitful real Email communication later. (if you have the spare time)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    TonyB, Reur 262,
    You quote just a few sources that are in agreement that there has been recent cooling, but there are also others, including projections of further decadal cooling. My favourite is at RealClimate, and what could be more Delphic for the alarmists?
    See RC article:
    Warming, interrupted: Much ado about natural variability
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
    None other than Ray Pierrehumbert (alarmist author/physicist) endorsed the article and commented thereon including repetition of the concept of a “warming pause”

    Thus; it is unquestionably an ultimate truth!

  16. TonyB,
    Further my final paragraph in 265, it is also interesting to note that the said RC thread was extraordinarily closed without explanation after a mere 8 days!
    Whoopsy!
    A case of mia culpa?
    (and bugger the opportunity to debate it!)

  17. I’ve been away for the past three weeks and have only had time for the occasional look at this site. One comment: it seems to me that the discussion in this thread has drifted much too far from its proper subject – Peter Taylor’s book.

  18. Robin

    Peter Taylor covers ALL the subjects- discussed over the past few weeks- in his book.

    He is very interested in the cyclical nature of climate-hence my recent posts- the evidence that glaciers give for past climate, the need for energy to be predicated on rationality and not politics, the social aspects, the propensity of scientists to comment on areas outside of their expertise, and the recent cooling and potential future cooling- which Peter M has been trying to evade.

    This is reflected in the title of his book ‘Chill’

    Indeed I think that on the whole people have stayed remarkably on topic, but then the topic is so broad and so many things are inter related.

    Welcome back!

    Tonyb

  19. PeterM, Bob_FJ, JH and TonyB

    Let’s do a quick summary, so we can cap off the discussion of the Fielding/Wong/Kininmouth et al. exchange initiated by Peter’s post # 199 in which he opined of Fielding’s temperature graph:

    I’m thinking that they’ve just made it up to suit their argument

    We have since established (a) that Sen. Fielding’s graph started in 1995, ended in March 2009 and was a 100% accurate depiction of the HadCRUT record, contrary to the initial suspicion of Peter Martin, and (b) that Sen. Fielding’s question #1 to Minister Wong related to the observed cooling since 1998 (linear cooling of -0.013°C per decade, or almost flat, according to the same record), to wit:

    Is the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period (see Fig. 1)?
    If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?

    Further we have seen that Minister Wong did not answer Sen. Fielding’s question directly but first engaged in a treatise about whether the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” as reported by HadCRUT is really a meaningful measure of global warming, to which the panel of experts selected by Sen. Fielding responded:

    In any case, however, Senator Fielding’s question was predicated upon the history of IPCC’s public advice, which has consistently used the UK Hadley Centre near-surface air temperature record since 1850 as a measure of global warming. This near-surface air temperature record is the one that dominates in IPCC and government policy papers and discussion, and is the criterion of judgement that both politicians and the public are familiar with.

    The second part of Minister Wong’s response conceded that air temperature had cooled despite increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but asserted,

    “natural variability can mask the atmospheric warming trend caused by the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases”

    This is a slippery slope for Minister Wong (see TonyB’s #262 and my #259), as the Fielding panel remarked:

    It is widely agreed that there is considerable natural variability in air temperature on decadal timescales and longer. It is the IPCC who have previously denied the effect of natural variability.

    So the Minister dug herself (and the whole AGW premise) into a hole with the “natural variability” rationalization.

    I’d say that caps it off pretty well and we can move on to other topics. What do you all think?

    Max

  20. Peter M

    Against my better judgment (and after having “capped off” the Fielding discussion) I will nevertheless reply to your 261:

    I’m not sure just how the Minister [Penny Wong] answered Fielding’s question regarding “no rise in temperature” in the last 15 years, but what she could have said, is that he should properly analyse his own graph, to see that the climate is, in fact, still warming.

    Do you agree that Fielding should have been able to see this for himself? A simple ‘Yes or No’ will do. :-)

    The answer is “NO” (because your question is wrong).

    Fielding clearly did not ask about “no rise in temperature in the last 15 years” (as you wrote) but to the period since 1998 (11 years), where the data show a slight cooling trend, as you “should have been able to see” for yourself.

    Got it? (A simple “YES” or “NO” answer will be OK).

    Max

  21. Max

    Now you have comprehensively dealt with Peters continued attempts to subvert the clear evidence on recent cooling-that even the top people agree is happening-can we revert to the question of providing similar evidence of past warming and cooling in mans recent history?

    In that respect I would be interested in your comments on the instrumental evidence provided in my #260 back to the year 1660

    tonyb

  22. JH 258

    I won’t argue the science with you, Max is doing very well with that, and the best thing you could do has already been suggested to you, read Peter Taylors book. You will find that most of those on the sceptical side of the argument are far more informed than 99.9% of those on the alarmist side. So it is better that you follow the discussion and learn. It is true that in the beginning of the sceptical movement there were those who were a little incoherent, and who’s arguments where easy to counter due to errors in the data. Now however we have analysed every last bit of data until we know it inside out. It is also true that many of the so called “incoherent’s” have not been proven wrong in their basic premise, even if some details were wrong. You will be hard pressed to find similar fault with Peter Taylor’s book.

    Almost to a person those that are sceptical have jobs that require them to analyse data of some sort and make sense of it. Some have to make commercial decisions with that information, other such as Peter Taylor rely on others judging that they have provided expert analysis which they are happy to pay for, and in both instances these people cannot afford to be wrong. In that sort of position you develop a keen sense of what’s what. So I would if I was you be circumspect about saying we are not thinking logically and look towards yourself and more particularly to the alarmist augment, which has nothing to do with logic or coherence.

    The entire alarmist argument is based on CO2 causing warming. Yet we argue endlessly about glaciers, ice, sea level, temperature anomalies (yuck), polar bears, and forget all about CO2. We ignore that it is measured in just one place on earth by a method that is open to interpretation. No one is denying that CO2 levels are rising, but is Mauna Loa representative? I think not, just thinking about it with my engineering hat on. I have no data to directly support that, but the study by Beck suggests the Mauna Loa figures may not be so. Also the leaked data from the satellite launched to measure atmospheric CO2 suggest that it did not come back with the expected results. In fact it could prove a major embarrassment if my hunch is correct. However again it all depends on who controls this data and how it is manipulated. And all this is irrelevant if no one can prove the feedback theory that the models are based on.

    So JH, we are happy to discuss anything with you, but be aware that if you are looking for some sort of proof of AGW and that mans burning of fossil fuel is the cause, then you need to discuss CO2, and not temperature, ice or glaciers. And good luck because we can find precocious little real information and perhaps you will be the person to enlighten us all. But this is only the beginning. Once you have established that CO2 does indeed cause dangerous warming by the feedback process, you will then need to establish that it is our burning of fossil fuel that is doing it. And here you will need even better luck, for this area is not so much devoid of information, but full of misinformation. So I for one look forward to seeing an enlightened post from you that demonstrates that you truly understand this subject and all its complexities.

  23. Antarctica’s ice story has been put on ice

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/antarcticas-ice-story-has-been-put-on-ice/

    The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.

  24. Any Brits posting here need to watch the commercial break in Coronation Street tonight and be prepared to be VERY angry.

    Those of other nationalties can see what is coming their way as you are still some way behind the official world leaders on tax payer funded climate propaganda.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867046.ece

    tonyb

  25. Thanks for the heads up Tony. I’m speechless at how completely out of touch Labour are with the electorate. Gordon Brown and the other bunnies think this is a sure fire vote winner, but the best it will achieve for them is to pinch a couple of votes from the greens or Lib dems. For most people it will be further proof they are not fit to govern.

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)


× one = 3

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha